CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO.1633OF 2007 Date of filing : 20/12/2007

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.258 OF 2004 Date of order : 10/08/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : Satara



Sou.Sarika Nandkumar Dhaigude

R/at C/o.P.B.Devkate, Rajivnagar,

Kolki, Tal. Phaltan, Dist.Satara. ….. Appellant/ Original Complainant

V/s.

1.Shri Duryodhan D. Ranvare,

Chairman, Indira Charitable Trust,

Dattkrupa, Golibar Maidan, Phaltan,

Dist.Satara.

2.Dr.Shri.Pankaj Ramrao Jagtap

R/at Golibar Maidan, Phaltan,

Dist.Satara.

3.Dr.Sou.Jotsna Pankaj Jagtap

R/at Golibar Maidan, Phaltan,

Dist.Satara.

4.Dr.Gunjan Kantilal Gandhi

R/at Raviwar Peth, Near Nagar

Palika, Phaltan, Dist.Satara.

5.Sou.Netra Gunjan Gandhi

R/at Raviwar Peth, Near Nagar

Palika, Phaltan, Dist.Satara.

6.Dr.Kiran Dnyandev Nale

R/at Malojiraje Nagar, Kolki,

Tal.Phaltan, Dist.Satara. ….. Respondent/ Original Opponent




Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Advocate, Mr.Sandeep Koregave for the Appellant.

Advocate, Mr.Vishal Bodhe for the Respondent.



- : ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member



1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 12/11/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No.258/2004, Sou.Sarika Nandkumar Dhaigude V/s. Shri.Duryodhan D. Ranvare, Chairman, Indira Charitable Trust and Others by Satara Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (“Forum below” in short).

2. It is the grievance of the appellant/original Complainant Sou.Sarika Dhaigude (herein referred as the ‘Complainant’) that she had registered herself with the hospital belonging to respondent no.1. Other respondents/opposite parties are the doctors attached to the said hospital. Complainant was registered herself for her first delivery with them. On 24/05/2004, she was admitted in the hospital, when she visited the hospital for routine check-up. She had undergone cesarean operation on 25/05/2004, though, unnecessary (according to the complainant) at the hands of the respondents/opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6. Consent of the complainant was not taken for cesarean operation. Therefore, she filed a consumer complaint claiming Rs.5,10,000/- as compensation on various counts.

3. Said consumer complaint was resisted by the opposite parties stating that she was admitted to the hospital when she had labour pains and with her consent only cesarean operation was carried out as it was the necessity of the time. The consumer complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred this appeal.

4. We heard Advocate Mr.Sandeep Koregave for the Appellant and Advocate, Mr.Vishal Bodhe for the Respondent. Perused the record.

5. In the instant case, as per the record made available to us, complainant herself failed to adduce any evidence in support of the complaint. She perhaps heavily relied upon the report of the Civil Surgeon only, which, categorically indicates that there was no medical negligence on the part of the respondents. It is revealed from the record that the complainant was admitted on 24/05/2004 after her labour pains started and after monitoring her condition, for about 41 hours, as the situation necessitated inter-alia including the fact that there was no much progress once the labour pains were started, towards the natural delivery, the placenta was found surrounding the neck of the child and the skull of the new born baby and the pelvis were compressed, necessitating delivery by cesarean. There is no negligence while carrying out a cesarean. This fact is particularly endorsed in the opinion expressed by the Civil Surgeon in his report.

6. Complainant tried to submit that respondents/opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 were not qualified doctors, but, she failed to substantiate the same. The factual situation, supra, which led doctors to take a decision for cesarean is not contradicted by the complainant by adducing any reliable evidence. Further, as far as issue as to her consent is concerned, respondents/opposite parties categorically stated that consent of complainant was taken, including that of her father, after explaining the situation to her and her relatives. These factual statements/pleadings of the respondents were not contradicted by the complainant by filing any rejoinder. Keeping silence for quite a long period, the fact that revealed that the complainant did not protested either while taken to operation theatre or soon after the cesarean/birth of a child, did speak for her consent, express or implied for the cesarean. The complainant tried to produce on record documents of consent and thereby tried to argue that consent of complainant herself was not obtained before performing the cesarean operation. What was obtained is only the consent of complainant’s father. In view of the situation discussed earlier including pleadings referred above, we find this single document tried to produce at the time of the arguments in appeal may not be taken as conclusive and throw away the case of the respondents on the point of consent of the complainant as reflected from the pleadings, and circumstances established, supra. In this background and considering factual situation of this case, apex court decision in the matter of Samira Kohli V/s.Dr.Prabha Manchandra and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 1 is distinguishable and of not much help to the appellant.

7. Forum below, as per the impugned order/award considered all the relevant aspects and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. We find no reason to take a different view and to disturb the same. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.





-:ORDER:-

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. Appellant to bear her own cost and pay Rs.500/- as costs to each one of the respondent.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member



kd.