S. M. Kantikar, Member. - (1.)This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainants against the order dated 02.08.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 52/SC/2000 by U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants towards damages, failing which, opposite party No.1 was directed to pay 10% interest to the complainants.
(2.)Shri Ramkesh, since deceased, (hereinafter referred as a patient) was suffering for the problems of pain in his knees since 1998. He consulted a local doctor, namely, Dr. R. K. Singh of Kanpur/OP OP 2 treated him for some time and prescribed some medicines. The patient got lot of relief and was relieved of the pain. Thereafter, in order to walk freely and get rid of the malady, the patient contacted Dr. R. N. Srivastava/OP 1. OP No.1/Dr. R. N. Srivastava suggested MRI test at Raj Scanning Centre. However, OP 1 performed spinal surgery instead of knee surgery by which his both legs were became paralysed. During post operative period, the father of the deceased patient requested OP 1 for opinion of Dr. Mazhar Husain, the specialist, but OP 1 denied and discharged him with the direction to show any doctor for consultation on 9.11.1998. His condition became deteriorated day by day. He incurred about Rs. 4,50,000/-. He could not attend the business because of the operation done by OP 1, which crippled his life. For the alleged medical negligence, the complainant/patient, Shri Ramkesh filed a complaint before the State Commission and prayed for compensation of Rs.11,10,000/- from the OPs. During the pendency of the case, the complainant/patient, Shri Ramkesh died. Therefore, his wife, Smt. Sheela Devi and minor daughter, Kumari Puja were impleaded as the complainants.
(3.)Before the State Commission, Dr. R. N. Srivastava/OP 1 denied all the allegations through the written version. He pleaded that as per MRI report dated 28.8.1998, the patient was suffering from cordedema/Myelomalacia i.e. degenerating disease of spinal cord and there was very little chance of recovery. Therefore, performing said operation, the cord degeneration process may be stopped or it will not progress. He submitted that the treatment was done with care and caution. The other MRI report date 17.9.1998 filed by the complainant does not suggest that due to operation, there was a spinal cord damage. There is no medical record in this regard also. He has consulted the famous surgeon, Mr. Mazhar Husain on telephone in presence of his father. Dr. Mazhar Husain also suggested that there is very little chance of success after operation yet endeavour should be made to release the pressure on the spinal cord. The operation was uneventful. The collection of blood from the side of operation was evacuated by opening the stitches.