- (1.) SINCE all these appeals under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arise from the order dated 28.1.2005 in Complaint No.176/04 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE complainant Parasram Soni, respondent No.l in all the appeals averred that as he had difficulty in passing urine, he approached Dr. R.K. Gupta, appellant No.l in Appeal No.98/05. Dr. R.K.Gupta advised that the complainant should get admitted in Luthara Hospital and Research Centre, Bilaspur where he (Dr. R.K. Gupta) will perform operation. The complainant further averred that as per directions of Dr. R.K. Gupta, he got himself admitted in Luthara Hospital, and on the same day Dr. R.K. Gupta conducted a minor operation and inserted Catheter. After about 3 days Dr. R.K.Gupta informed the complainant that a major surgery for his problem will have to be undertaken and accordingly second surgery on 18.5.2004 was conducted by Dr. R.K. Gupta. Thereafter, the complainant was discharged from Luthara Hospital on 27.5.2004. However, the Catheter continued to be inserted.
(3.) FURTHER averments of the complainant were that Dr. Gupta told the complainant that he should take medicines prescribed by him and the Catheter would be removed after 15 days. The complainant further averred that after 15 days Catheter was removed and some more medicines were prescribed and Dr. R.K.Gupta assured the complainant that he would be now completely alright. Yet, he continued to face difficulty in passing the urine and that he also had burning sensation while passing urine. The complainant averred that the Catheter also was repeatedly inserted from time to time by Dr. Gupta. It is further averred by the complainant that after a few days, there was obstruction in passing urine by the complainant. The complainant further averred that he again approached Dr. Gupta in view of the problems as above, upon which Dr. Gupta advised sonography examination by Dr. Motwani. Complainant as per advice of Dr. R.K. Gupta, underwent Sonography examination from Dr. Motwani, and showed the said report thereof, to Dr. Gupta. The complainant averred that Dr. Gupta informed the complainant on 21.8.2004 that he is not in a position to remove the Catheter and called Dr. Motwani to assist him. Thereafter, with great difficulty the Catheter was removed. Some more medicines were again prescribed to the complainant which he continued to take from 22.8.2004 to 18.9.2004. Further averments of the complainant were that during the above period he had lesser difficulty in passing urine. However, the complainant could not pass urine on 19.9.2004 upon which he again approached Dr. Gupta. Dr. Gupta again inserted Catheter and directed the complainant to take some medicines. Further averments of the complainant were that thereafter Dr. Gupta advised him to go to Dr. Dixit and get himself operated again by him. According to the complainant, Dr. Gupta did not properly treat him, as a result of which he had to face Prostate problem which ultimately was treated and cured by Dr. Dixit. Alleging deficiency in service the complainant claimed total damages of Rs. 80,000 as also cost of the complaint. Dr. R.K. Gupta and Director, Luthara Hospital and Research Centre (hereinafter referred as Luthra Hospital, for short) who were OP Nos. 1 and 2, filed their joint written version. According to the averments in the said written version by OP Nos. 1 and 2, the complainant had approached OP No. 1 Dr. R.K. Gupta on the night of 13.5.2004 as he was not in a position to pass urine due to enlarged Prostate Gland. Further averments of OP Nos. 1 and 2 were that though they attempted to clear the Ureter of the complainant by inserting Catheter, but that was not successful; therefore, there was no option but to perform surgery, which was done on the night of 14.5.2004 in the OP No. 2 Hospital. Thereafter on 20.5.2004, surgery of Prostate gland of the complainant, was performed by Dr. R.K.Gupta. It was found that prostate gland was greatly enlarged and solid and also there were small stones therein. It was also averred that the complainant and his relatives were informed about the position of his prostate gland and consent was obtained regarding surgery thereof. After removal of prostate gland, it was sent for Histo Pathological test. It was further averred that the complainant was discharged from OP No. 2 Luthra Hospital on 26.5.2004. However, the catheter tube was continued to be inserted and the complainant was advised to get it removed after 7 days. It was further averred by OP Nos. 1 and 2 that the complainant did not turn up after 7 days for follow up treatment and removal of catheter. It was further averred that on 21.8.2004 OP No. 1 Dr. R.K. Gupta prescribed some medicines to the complainant. Thereafter on 19.9.2004 the complainant was advised to get himself examined by Dr. Dixit. It was further averred that thereafter the complainant did not turn up for treatment before Dr. Gupta. It was denied that there was any negligence or wrong treatment by OP No. 1 Dr. Gupta.;