DR. SANJAY GARG Vs. HARJIT SINGH
LAWS(NCD)-2020-10-2
NCDRC
Decided on October 05,2020

Dr. Sanjay Garg Appellant
VERSUS
HARJIT SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ACHUTRAO HARIBHAU KHODWA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.M.KANTIKAR, MEMBER, J. - (1.) These Revision Petitions have been filed against a common Order dated 30.04.2013 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 130, 109 and 126 of 2007, whereby FA/109/2007 was partly accepted and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the "District Forum") was modified, and FA/126/2007 and FA/130/2007 were dismissed and the order of the District Forum was affirmed.
(2.) For convenience, the Parties are placed in their respective position as stated in the original Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.
(3.) Brief facts are that, the Complainant's wife, Smt. Sukhpal Kaur, (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') on 07.09.2005 underwent hysterectomy by Dr. Sanjay Garg, (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 1) in Delhi Nursing Home, Bathinda. After surgery she was made ambulatory (to walk within 12 hours of surgery) and oral feeds within 24 hours, the urinary catheter was put for 48 hours of surgery. She was discharged on 10.09.2005 in satisfactory condition. However, on the next day due to swelling and numbness in her left leg, she was taken to Opposite Party No. 1 in emergency. Her condition further deteriorated and she was taken to M/s Delhi Heart Institute and Research Centre, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2), wherein she was diagnosed as post-hysterectomy DVT with anemia and septicemia. After short treatment, she was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the "DMC") (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 3). There she was diagnosed as post hysterectomy DVT with septicemic shock with DIC and MOF. The doctors therein informed that the condition of patient was due to the negligence of the Opposite Party No. 1. The patient died in DMC on 12.09.2005. The Complainant alleged that the operation was performed negligently by the Opposite Party No. 1 and no post-operative tests were conducted to rule out complications such as Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and septicemia. Being aggrieved a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Bathinda was filed by the husband of the deceased.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.