PANKAJ K. PATEL Vs. RAMILABEN D. PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 864/2006 dated 13.06.2011.

(2.) According to the Complainant (Respondent No.1), Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1, a Health Visitor and her husband Bharatbhai Jarivala approached her in July-August 1994 and suggested abortion and family planning operation, as she had two months old pregnancy. On 11.08.1994, as per instructions of Respondent No.2, Complainant (Respondent No.1), her mother Bhikhiben and her husband Dineshbhai went to the hospital of the Petitioner. On the same day, about 3:00 p.m., the Petitioner gave an injection to Complainant (Respondent No.1) before taking her to the operation theatre. Thereafter, Petitioner gave 2 more injections to Complainant (Respondent No.1) and took her inside the operation theatre where her legs were tied. At the time of the operation, the Petitioner, members of his staff and Respondent No.2 were present. She did not lose consciousness and could see what was being done to her. Respondent No.2 firmly held her hand. Thereafter, the Petitioner operated in her private parts. After some time the Petitioner informed Complainant (Respondent No.1), that he had cleaned the uterus, but as there was a tumor in the uterus, major operation for removal of uterus had to be done. Thereafter, the Complainant (Respondent No.1) was taken outside in a stretcher to the ward and was laid on a mattress on the floor. Pain in the stomach started in the operation theatre and she was feeling uneasy and bled from her private parts. After the Complainant (Respondent No.1) was taken out of the operation theatre and brought to the ward, Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 did not give any treatment to her. Before she (Respondent No.1) was taken to the operation theatre, neither Respondent No.2 nor the Petitioner conducted any blood/urine examination. It was alleged that without any clinical examination or other tests, the Petitioner took her (Respondent No.1) to the operation theatre directly. He also did not care to find out whether she was actually pregnant or only had a tumor. The Petitioner caused hole in the uterus by inept use of instruments leading to bleeding and sepsis, ultimately leading to removal of her uterus. The operation (at Ashirwad Hospital) was necessitated because of the medical negligence of the Petitioner during the first surgery. She had to spend heavily on the operation, medicines and treatment etc. at Ashirwad Hospital. A Complaint was, thus, filed by Respondent No.1, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner wherein it was stated that on 11.08.1994 Respondent No.1 came to the hospital in the afternoon complaining of pain in lower abdomen. She was having irregular menstrual periods and missed periods for 2 months. Her general condition was weak and she had complaint of tachicardia. The lower abdomen was hard and in 'Grehyang' there was blood. Complainant (Respondent No.1) was not fit for performing family planning operation. It was, therefore, decided to admit her in the hospital for investigation. However, the Complainant (Respondent No.1) did not agree to the same and against the advice of the doctor left the hospital. Petitioner produced certificate of Dr. Ravindra Grasiya that no operation was performed at the hospital by the Petitioner. Petitioner as well as Dr. Ravindra Garasiya examined the Complainant (Respondent No.1) and both were of the opinion that she was not fit for family planning operation.