ACHARYA VINOBA BHAVE RURAL HOSPITAL Vs. SAMIKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short "the Act") is to the common order dated 04.12.2014, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Nagpur (in short "the State Commission") in Appeal Nos. 477, 548 and 672 of 2008 preferred by Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital"), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company") and Ku. Samiksha D/o Sachin Kokadwar (hereinafter referred to as "the Patient") respectively. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed all the three Appeals confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wardha (in short "the District Forum").

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Patient, aged 3 years, D/o Shri Sachin Kokadwar was taken to the Hospital on 02.03.2004 with a complaint of fever and was admitted as an indoor patient from 02.03.2004 to 05.03.2004 as she was diagnosed to be suffering from Brancho pneumonia. As the fever continued she was admitted on 11.03.2004 in another Hospital, where she was diagnosed to be having Vasico Uretery Reflex problem for which the Patient was advised to be operated for re-implantation of ureter and the said surgery was performed on 03.04.2004. Bilateral VUR was not successful and there was oozing of urine from the bladder and also from the stitches. Once again the Patient was operated on 17.04.2004, when a laparotomy was performed and it was detected that the re-implantation of left side ureter was functioning properly but the VUR problem was still persisting on the right side and therefore the right side ureter was again re-implanted. After the surgery ,the Patient was discharged on 30.04.2004 and it is averred that there was calculus in the right ureter but the same was not mentioned in the clinical notes.

(3.) The Patient continued to have oozing of urine from the bladder and she was once again shown to the surgical department on 03.05.2004, 07.05.2004 and 17.05.2004 with leakage of urine but the doctors did not take proper care. Even the stitches to the bladder was not made properly and it is averred that it was only on account of the negligent action of the Hospital and the doctors that the Patient's condition deteriorated with continuous flow of urine. The Patient was taken to Kasturba Hospital, Sewagram on 10.05.2004, where the Doctor advised to see a urologist for better treatment as the condition of the Patient became very critical. The Patient was thereafter taken to Vasant Nursing Home, Nagpur, where she was diagnosed by Dr. Suhas V. Salpekar, Senior Urologist and was operated for post operational discharge of urine from the stitches of the bladder. It is averred that at that point of time, there was severe pus formation. The urologist operated upon the Patient, opined that there was a cotton gauze, i.e. a foreign body which remained inside the bladder. It is pleaded that the cotton gauze was left by the doctors of the first Hospital, where the initial surgery was performed during re-implantation of the ureter. It is only due to the cotton gauze having been left behind that all the complications had occurred, which left a permanent black scar on the bladder. It is pleaded that the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur ' which apply to this case as thing speaks for themselves. It is further pleaded that since the vital organs of the Patient were not fully developed, there were symptoms of hernia growth and Dr. Suhas V. Salpekar has advised that the Patient should undergo a hernia operation in the coming months and the Patient though only three years old had to undergo hernia operation. The repeated operations left a permanent black scar on the operated part, which is also visible externally.