R N SHARMA Vs. NEELAM CHARAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 16-4-1999 passed by the learned J. & K. State Consumer Protection Commission, Jammu whereby compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded to the complainant/petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner Neelam Charak was suffering from chronic micturtion i.e. obstruction in passing Urine. She consulted senior Surgeon Urologist, Dr. R. N. Sharma, appellant on 30-8-1995. Appellant Dr. Sharma examined her clinically and directed her to go to Medicare Nursing Home, where Dr. Sharma was working for conducting various tests. Accordingly, clinical tests were conducted, whereafter she was examined by Dr. R.N. Sharma, who diagnosed the ailment of appellant/complainant as Bladder Neck obstruction due to Bladder neck elevation. She was advised to undergo operation for that. With her consent, she was operated upon by giving Bladder Neck Incision at 6 OClock position. For post operative care, she remained admitted in the Nursing Home for two days and thereafter she was discharged. On the same day, however, the complainant complained of lack of control of micturition. Appellant, R.N. Sharma was again consulted who put Catheter and removed the same after sometime for being put on medicine but the problem continued to persist, whereupon Dr. Sharma, appellant himself advised complainant to go for second opinion from PGI, Chandigarh. Complainant went there in Oct. 1995. She was again put on medicine but her condition did not improve. Thereafter she went to Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi in February, 1996 and consulted Dr. Vohra, who examined the complainant and diagnosed her ailment as Urethro Vaginal, Fistula and conducted second surgery for repairing the damage done to the damaged part of the complainant, whereafter she was cured of her problem.

(3.) She made a complaint under Section 10 of the J. and K. Consumer Protection Act, 1987 before the learned State Consumer Protection Commission, Jammu. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents contested the claim of the complainant. Appellant did not dispute the fact of his having conducted surgery upon the complainant for curing her chronic micturition disease. He took up the stand that on examination, he found that there was Bladder neck obstruction and so he had given incision by Cystourethroscipy. And that there was no negligence on his part.