JAIPUR SURGICAL AND JANANA HOSPITAL Vs. KAUSHALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby the petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 244 of 2006. By way of the impugned order, the order dated 12.2005 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as "District Forum") dismissing the C.C. No. 496 of 2005 has been set aside.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant No. 2 and his wife, complainant No. 1, approached the opposite parties for undergoing tubectomy operation on 6.2005. OP No. 2 performed the surgery by way of laparoscopy. Despite assurance from the opposite parties that there would be no pain/problem after the surgery, the complainant No. 1 started to feel pain in her abdomen. OP No. 2 assured complainant No. 1 that there would be relief from pain after some days and he also prescribed some medicines and suggested follow-up on 16.2005 and 26.2005. It is the case of the complainant that although the complainant No. 1 visited the opposite parties on 16.2005 and 18.6.2005, there was no relief in pain and fever. Consequently, on 19.6.2005, the complainant No. 1 was forced to approach Ashirwad Hospital, Sri. Ganganagar. After undergoing series of tests and examinations, the complainant No. 1 was diagnosed to be having peritoneal fluid on account of negligent surgery conducted by opposite party No. Hence, the complainant No. 1 underwent another surgery on 21.6.2005. The complainant also remained in the said hospital under observation from 19.6.2005 to 6.7.2005. Aggrieved by the deficient service rendered by the opposite parties, the complainants approached the District Forum and filed the complaint.

(3.) The District Forum vide order dated 1.12.2005 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainants failed to produce any evidence to prove that the complications that developed subsequently were on account of the tubectomy surgery performed by the opposite party No. 2 on 2.6.20005. The District Forum also dismissed the allegation of the complainants that the opposite parties were not competent to perform the said surgery and held that the opposite party No. 2, being MS in Surgery,was qualified to perform such surgeries.