RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Complaint No. 55 of 2011

Nisar Ahmad, aged about 45 years, s/o late Jamal

Ahmad, R/o Old Sabji Mandi, Shahganj, Sultanpur.  

                                                                     ..Complainant.

Versus

1- Dr. Anoop Kumar Wahal, Professor, Chatrapati

    Sahuji Maharaju Medical University, R/o B-52,

    Sector B, Aliganj, New Nehru Bal Vatika,

    Lucknow (U.P.)

2- Green Cross Medical Centre ( A Unit of Nirala

    Nagar Clinic and Maternity Centre), B-167-A,

    Nirala Nagar, Lucknow through its Manager/

    Director.

3- Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaju Medical University,

    U.P. & Gandhi Memorial & Associated Hospital,

    Lucknow through its Vice Chancellor.

4-  Avadh Hospital & Heart Centre, Avadh Hospital

    Chauraha, Singar Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow-

    226006 through its Manager/Director.

5- Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Sarita Vihar,

    Delhi – Mathura Road, New Delhi-110076 through

    Its Manager.                                          ….Opp. Parties.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Shri S.P. Pandey, for the complainant.

Shri Anurag Srivastava, for the OP no.1 & 2.

Shri J.N. Misra, for the OP no.3.

Shri Sarvesh Sharma, for the OP no.4.

None for the OP no.5.

Date 12.1.2018

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This complaint has been filed by the complainant for 

(2)

awarding Rs.36,86,499.00 for medical reimbursement, Rs.3 lacs for medical treatment to be incurred in future, Rs.5 lacs as expenses in traveling, fooding and lodging, Rs.3 lacs incurred in Air Ambulance, Rs.10 lacs as business and professional loss, Rs.25 lacs as compensation for damages for physical and mental harassment and Rs.1 lac for legal expenses.

The case in brief, of the complainant is that he felt pain in his stomach in January, 2009, so he consulted Dr. Sadiq Ali of Sultanpur who after examinations and blood tests done, diagnosed that the complainant was suffering from "Cholelethiasis" and referred him to Dr. Anoop Kumar Wahal, the OP no.1 of Lucknow for further treatment. The complainant met the OP no.1 at his residence, and after examining the complainant and going through blood tests and ultrasound reports, he advised the complainant for surgery and asked him to get admitted in the hospital of the OP no.2 i.e. Green Cross Medical Centre. The complainant was admitted on 30.1.2009 in the hospital of the OP no.2 and on the same day the OP no.1 operated the complainant and removed his entire Gall Bladder and thereafter, discharged the complainant from the hospital on 1.2.2009 with a few instructions and medicines to be taken. The complainant returned to his home at Sultanpur and kept taking medicines but on 4.2.2009, he felt severe pain in his stomach, so he contacted the OP no.1 who asked him to come to Lucknow and after examining the complainant in his house, the OP no.1 asked him to get the ultrasound of the

(3)

upper abdomen done. Thereafter, the complainant got the ultrasound done on 4.2.2009 wherein it was revealed that the puss had collected in the abdomen of the complainant and on seeing the ultrasound report the OP no.1 advised the complainant to get admitted in the Trauma Centre of CSM Medical University and Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Lucknow, the OP no.3. Therefore, on 4.2.2009, the complainant was admitted in Trauma Centre where the puss was drained by the OP no.1 and the complainant had to remain in Trauma Centre till 12.2.2009 under the treatment of the OP no.1 but the condition of the complainant worsened as the OP no.1 failed to control and diagnose the actual problem. So, the attendants of the complainant shifted him to Avadh Hospital, Lucknow, the OP no.4 in serious condition but the condition did not improve in that hospital also, as the OP no.4 also could not understand the real problem. The OP no.4 referred the complainant to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi where he was taken through Air Ambulance on 19.2.2009 and thereafter, he was treated till he showed signs of improvement on 22.4.2009 and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital of OP no.5 on 4.5.2009. The complainant was again admitted in the hospital of OP no.5 on 27.5.2009 for skin grafting of his wound which was done there successfully and thereafter, discharged from the hospital on 3.6.2009. The complainant is in constant care and regular check up of the OP no.5 but from the facts, it is clear that for such grievous and uncontrolled end stage condition of the complainant, the OP no.1 to 4 were liable,

(4)

specially the OP no.1 who has without proper care conducted the operation on the complainant and thereafter, the OP no.2 failed to control the medical complications. Since the OP no.2 and 3 carried out the medical treatment under the advice of the OP no.1, therefore, they are liable for the complications. The OP no.1 to 4 failed to call any expert on the continuous deteriorating condition of the complainant. The complainant was not only hurriedly operated upon but was also discharged from the hospital without proper watching post operative developments. The complainant was not provided with the necessary documents and information, therefore, he had to take recourse to the Right to Information Act. The OPs no.1 to 4 had committed deficiency in service whereupon the condition of the complainant became so bad. Therefore, this complaint for awarding compensation etc. and cost of litigation from the OPs.

          The OP no.1 filed the written statement wherein he has admitted treating the complainant and conducting surgery on him but denied the rest of the contention of the complainant. It is mainly submitted by the OP no.1 that the complainant was operated upon by the OP no.1 after receiving the blood report. In the Laparoscopy, he was find to have distended, edematous gall bladder with patches of necrosis of its walls. He was suffering from acute cholecystis with empyema and hence, needed an emergency operation to prevent further complications like septicemia. The OP, thereafter, conducted the surgery extracting the gall bladder. The patient had undertaken the

(5)

operation very well and by the next morning he improved steadily and started tolerating orally, his pain was almost gone and pulse and temperature settled and by 31 January, 2009 he passed flatus too indicative of return of normal function of intestines and hence, he was discharged on 1.2.2009 with directions to take medicines as per the advise. The complainant was prescribed higher dose of antibiotics and was advised for cleanliness and proper hygiene so that he may not suffer form infection but it appears that he did not follow the instructions properly. On receiving a call from the complainant about severe pain in stomach on 4.2.2009, the OP no.1 advised him to come to Lucknow as there could be post operative complications due to collection of inflammatory fluid which is not unusual in such kind of pathology or it could be due to infection caused by resistant bacteria or non compliance of medications. After getting the complainant examined and an ultrasound done, he asked the complainant to either go to the Globe Hospital or Gastro surgery in KGMU and the patient's relatives opted for Trauma Centre of KGMU. The OP no.1 was busy with wedding of his daughter on 12.2.2009 and ceremonies related to it and therefore, he had to refer to higher centre for further management. The complainant thereafter, did not contact him. The patient was having severe acute cholecystis with empyema of gall bladder and was potentially high risk case which was explained to the patient and relatives before treatment was started. It is unfortunate that he developed delayed post operative

(6)

complications for which severity of his own illness, suspected poor compliance of poor personal hygiene and also his own immuno-suppressed condition could have been the cause. He was promptly referred to higher centre for management. The OP no.1 did not commit any deficiency in service as proper treatment was given all through and that promptly he was advised and referred for remedial measures for higher centers for further management. Besides, this complaint was liable to be dismissed as time barred as the operation was performed on 30.1.2009 whereas the complaint was filed on 31.5.2011.

          The OP no.2 filed their written statement admitting therein that the complainant was admitted in their hospital where he was operated by the OP no.1. The OP no.1 had charged Rs.30,000.00 directly from the complainant for the operation. The operation was successfully conducted by the OP no.1 and there was no post operative complications and the complainant was discharged by the OP no.1 on 1.2.2009 without any complaint. The OP no.2 had nothing to do with the subsequent events of admission in Trauma Center or other hospital on the advice of the OP no.1. The complaint is barred by time and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

          The OP no.3 has also filed the written statement submitting therein that the complaint was not maintainable against the OP no.1 and 3 in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Santha III(1995) CPJ 1 (SC), as the Trauma Center

(7)

hospital where the complainant had undergone treatment, is a Government Hospital and the concerned doctor and OP no.3 who and the team of doctors who attended the complainant rendered service free of charge and therefore, did not fall within the ambit of section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, this case was not maintainable against them. Besides, the treatment given at the Trauma Center was in accordance with the standard medical practice. On the basis of ultrasound report dated 4.2.2009, it can not be concluded that the problem caused to the complaint was due to any negligence on the part of the OP no.1 in treating the complainant. The operation was performed by the OP no.1 with due diligence, therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          The OP no.4 filed their written statement submitting therein that the complainant was referred by the OP no.1 only on 12.2.2009 prior to which no treatment was provided to the complainant by the OP no.4. The complainant came to the OP no.4 suffering from Bilateral Pleural Effusion from multiple intra abdominal collection. The diagnosis of the complainant was done with utmost care and the expert team of doctor planned that emergency laparotomy should be conducted to know the exact reason for Bilateral discharge and for the same, consent for ventilator as well as for the exploration of the abdomen was taken and the entire procedure of the surgery was explained to the attendants of the patient. Thereafter, the surgery was conducted and even though the condition of

(8)

the patient started improving, on the insistence of the attendants, the discharge summery was given on 19.2.2009 and a letter was provided to the Airport Authority to get the patient shifted to OP no.5. The OP no.4 did not commit any negligence in treating the patient. He was under the treatment as the doctors of the OP no.3 w.e.f. 4.2.2009 to 12.2.2009. The complainant was required treatment as per the protocol and bilious fluid was drained and best antibiotics given. No case of negligence has been made out against the OP no.4 therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP no.4 with cost.

          The OP no.5 has also filed the written statement submitting therein that there was no negligence in the treatment provided by them hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP. The OP no.5 is requested for deleting the name from the array of the parties.

          The complainant has filed his affidavit alongwith 3 annexures running into 59 pages. The complainant has also filed 17 annexures with is complaint.

The OP no.1 has filed his affidavit with 1 annexure containing the literature on Cholecystis.

The OP no.2 has filed the affidavit of Dr. Abdul Mabood Khan and a copy of discharge card alongwith it and also case sheet as annexure no.1 with his written statement.

The OP no.4 has filed the affidavit of Shri Hansraj Bhawnani and 1 annexure with it running into 57 pages.

(9)

The OP no.5 has filed the affidavit of Shri A.K. Singhal.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

 In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant was treated by the OP no.1 in the hospital of the OP no.2 and that a surgery was conducted by the OP no.1 whereby the gal bladder of the complainant was removed by the OP no.1. It is also not disputed that the complainant suffered complications after a few days of the operation and discharged from the hospital and that he was referred to Trauma Center, KGMU and thereafter, he was taken to Avadh Hospital and ultimately to Apollo Hospital. The disputed point according to the complainant is that he was not properly treated by the OP no.1 and it is due to his negligence in treating him that the complications arose whereby he had to suffer a lot physically and financially. It is also disputed that the complainant was not properly treated even in the hospital of the OP no.2 and also by the OP no.3 and the OP no.4 and therefore, the OP no.1 to 4 have committed deficiency in service and therefore, the complainant deserves adequate compensation. On the contrary, the OP no.1 to 4 contended that no deficiency in service was committed by them. The OP no.1 has contested the version of the complainant that he was specially responsible for deficiency in service in conducting the surgery of his abdomen and for post operative complications when in fact he had not committed any deficiency in service and had treated the

(10)

complainant with due care and caution. It is also disputed that this complaint has been filed with delay and therefore, whether it was liable to be dismissed as barred by time or not.

So, firstly it is to be seen as to whether this complaint was barred by time or not. If so, it effect.

In this regard, it is contended by the OPs that the operation by the OP no.1 was conducted on 30.1.2009 and so the cause of action arose on 30.1.2009 whereas this complaint has been filed on 31.5.2011, after lapse of mandatory  period of 2 years, therefore, it is barred by time. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant was getting treatment subsequent to the operation done on 30.1.2009 as he was getting the treatment subsequently in KGMU, Avadh Hospital and thereafter in the Apollo Hospital and he was discharged from the Apollo Hospital, the second time on 3.6.2009 and as the complainant's treatment continued till 30.6.2009 therefore, the cause of action continued till 30.6.2009 and even thereafter, as the complainant moved RTI application where the information was given by the CSMU on 27.4.2010. Under the circumstances, the complaint cannot be said to be filed with delay as it was filed within 2 years of the discharge from the Apollo Hospital on 3.6.2009, as also the information supplied by CSMU on 27.4.2010. Therefore, there is no substance and merit in the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the OPs that the complaint is barred by time. Therefore, it is held that this complaint is not barred by time.

(11)

Now, we come to the main issue as to whether the OP no.1 to 4 committed any deficiency in service or not. If so, its effect.

In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant was hurriedly operated upon by the OP no.1 and therefore, complications arose. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the OP no.1 did not adhere to medical protocol provided for surgery of abdomen for removing the gall bladder and therefore, the OP no.1 committed deficiency in service and as it was in a hospital of the OP no.2 that the surgery was conducted therefore, the OP no.2 was also responsible for such deficiency in service by the OP no.1. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the OP no.3 and 4 also did not provide proper treatment whereby the complainant had to be flown to Apollo Hospital, the OP no.5 for treatment. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the OP no.1 that standard medical protocol was observed in conducting the surgery which was required as the complainant was suffering pain in his abdomen. It is also argued by the counsel for the OP no.1 that in such serious case, complications do arise which may be because of the complainant not taking proper precaution for hygiene and for medication. Besides, there is no evidence to show that the complainant had committed any gross negligence in conducting the surgery or providing the medication whereby it could be discerned that the OP no.1 was negligent in treating the patient.

It is also argued by the ld. counsel for the

(12)

complainant that the OP no.1 Dr. Anoop Kumar Wahal was professor in CSMU, Lucknow and was a Government servant hence, he was no entitled to do private practice whereas the OP no.1 conducted the surgery in a private Nursing Home of the OP no.2 and therefore, this act itself was an expression of deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the OP no.1 that the OP no.1 was on leave and then he had performed the surgery but the question arises as to whether a Government doctor, if he is on leave, can he do private practice. There is no dispute on the point that the  Government doctor was not allowed to do private practice. There is no evidence or rule provided by the OP no.1 to show that he was entitled to do private practice while being on leave. The ld. counsel for the complainant has cited a ruling of Dr. Y.P. Singh & ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors., AIR 1982 All 439 wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has decided on 1.4.1982 that the prohibition by the Government of U.P. whereby the Government doctors were prohibited for doing private practice was held to be a reasonable one and therefore, the OP no.1 was not entitled to do private practice. Therefore, it is unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service by the OP no.1 to have privately treated the complainant.

          Now we come to the point as to whether there was negligence committed by the OPs in treating the complainant or not. In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the OP no.1 did not

(13)

adhere to medical protocol provided for the surgery of abdomen. It is also argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that because of negligent treatment of the complainant that the complications arose after the surgery conducted by the OP no.1. The Ld. counsel for the OP no.1 has argued that there is no expert opinion to show that the OP no.1 was negligent in treating the complainant but it transpires that the complainant consulted the OP no.1 at his residence on 30.1.2009 and on the basis of blood and ultrasound reports of the complainant, the OP no.1 got him admitted in the hospital of the OP no.2 on 30.1.2009 itself and he was also operated upon the same day whereby his entire Gal Bladder was removed by the OP no.1 and that the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 1.2.2009 itself. It is noticeable that the complainant felt severe pain on 4.2.2009 itself and hence, he conacted the OP no.1 who advised him to come to Lucknow and thereafter, again after getting the ultrasound of the upper abdomen of the complainant on 4.2.2009 that the OP no.1 has advised the complainant to get admitted in the trauma center of CSMU, Lucknow where the puss which had collected as per the report of the ultrasound was drained by the OP no.1 from the stomach of the complainant. According to the counsel for the OP no.1, the case of the complainant was serious one but ironically the OP no.1 conducted the operation on the same day on which the complainant meets him at his residence after getting him admitted in private hospital of the OP no.2 and that too on the basis of earlier tests reports. So, it appears

(14)

to be a case of negligence on the part of the OP no.1 in not properly getting the complainant investigated through updated tests and investigations. It also transpires that the patient was discharged within a couple of days of getting operated upon whereas he had to remain in trauma center for more than a week after the operation and there also the condition of the patient does not improve but it gets worse. Hence, he had to be shifted in Avadh Hospital and thereafter Indraprasth Apollo Hospital at New Delhi where he had to remain from 19.2.2009 till 4.5.2009. So, it obviously is a case of res ipsa loquitor as there is substance in the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the complainant that it is because of not adhering to the medical protocol for conducting surgery of abdomen and not being able to properly diagnose the problem for its proper treatment that the condition of the complainant, instead of improving, kept worsening after the surgery conducted by the OP no.1. It is also argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the OP no.1 did not adhere to the proper procedure for conducting a major operation as the consent of the complainant was not taken for conducting the surgery. From the discharge summary of the Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, the history of the patient is mentioned as under:-

          "Mr. Nisar Ahmad, 42 years old gentleman, non smoker, normotensive, euglycemic came to IAH on 19.2.2009 with a history of abdominal pain for 3-4 days with a bulky round history of laparoscopic cholecystectomy done for GB on 30.1.2009. Following it

(15)

he was discharged on 1.2.2009 but he had persistent abdominal pain consequent of which ERCP was done on 5.2.2009 which was suggestive of leak from right hepatic duct, so laparoscopic drain was placed on 10.2.2009 (aspirate done grew enterococcus and candida. CECT was done outside on 12.2.2009 which revealed multiple intraabdominal collections along with bilateral pleural effusions with deranged urea/creatinine of 138/7.4 and under urinary output. Emergency laparotomy was done on 12.2.2009 lavage done and drains put. Patient was put on daily hemodialysis and BIPAP support. Had received Meropenem/Metrogyl and Tavanic in hospital was intubated for transportation and brought to IAH for further evaluation and management."   

          In the discharge summary, the course adopted in the hospital has also been mentioned and the important portion of the course is as under:-

          "His all recent and old investigations and records were reviewed and noted. 2D ECHO was done on 19.2.2009 revealed EF 65% LVEDP-normal, CVP-5 and SVR-1150 which was suggestive of sepsis. He was started and managed on IV fluids, IV antibiotics (Meronem/ OFlox/Clindamycin) along with TPN. Expert opinion was taken from Dr. D.K. Agarwal (Sr. Cons. Nephrology) and Dr. Deepak Govil (Dr. Cons. Surgical Gastroenterology) and their respective advice was incorporated into the treatment regime. He was managed on ventillator support and ionotrope (Noradrenalin) which were consequently tapered off. Different cultures (Urine, blood, ET, drain

(16)

fluid) were sent which revealed growth of Ist and IInd blood culture. No growth. ET (fungal and AFB stains were negative and culture delayed candida albican). Drain fluid C/S – Ecoli and streptococcus."

          The aforesaid discharge summary of the Apollo Hospital makes it abundantly clear that when the patient was taken to the Apollo Hospital, the investigation revealed it to be a case of suggestive of sepsis. The detailed and long treatment provided to the complainant in the Apollo Hospital speaks volumes about the serious condition of the complainant when he was taken to the Apollo Hospital at Delhi and all this long treatment is the consequence of an operation conducted by the OP no.1 who discharges the patient within a couple of days of surgery. Besides, it also transpires from the evidence that no drain pipe was applied at the time of surgery to ensure that the bilious fluid is discharged. It is noticeable that it is only subsequently that such a drain pipe was put. The drain pipe was put in CSMU, Lucknow on 10.2.2009 as per report supplied by CSMU on 12.8.2014, a copy of which has been filed. The entire gamut of incidents compel us to reach the irresistible conclusion that it is because of the surgery not being properly conducted as per medical protocol that the case of the complainant worsened and he had to undergo such a long treatment facing physical, mental and financial strains.   

          It is also argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the OP no.1 did not take written consent from the complainant for conducting the surgery. Though, it is argued from the side of the OP no.1 that the consent of the

(17)

patient and the relative was taken but no written consent for conducting surgery was place on record whereby it could be proved that written consent was taken for conducting the surgery. It is noticeable that the OP no.4 has placed a copy of the written consent for keeping the complainant on ventilator in Avadh Hospital, a copy of which is on record.

          So from the discussions made above, it is clear that the OP no.1 being a Government doctor was not entitled to do private practice but still he treated the complainant as a private patient getting him admitted in a private hospital and conducting his surgery in the hospital of the OP no.2 on payment of Rs.30,000.00 as alleged by the complainant. It is also abundantly clear that it is because of the negligence of the OP no.1 in properly diagnosing the problem and conducting the surgery without proper tests and investigations in a hurried manner and not taking precautions such as putting the drain pipe etc. for stopping the leakage etc. that the condition of the complainant became from bad to worse and he had to suffer a lot physically, mentally and financially. Therefore, obviously the OP no.1 is guilty of deficiency in service in treating the complainant as he did not fulfill the basic requirements while conducting the serious surgery of removing the Gall Bladder. The OP no.1 conducted the surgery in the hospital of the OP no.2 and it is argued by the ld. counsel for the OP no.2 that the OP no.2 is not responsible for the deficiency in service of the OP no.1 as they only provided the hospital and the facilities to conduct the surgery and it is the doctor who talk to the patient directly and thereafter, the patient 

(18)

on their own, get the treatment done in their hospital and therefore, the OP no.2 is not at all responsible for the negligent act of the OP no.1. The OP no.2 has in their WS stated that some times doctors see their cases at the their clinic but they bring their patients for delivery or surgery etc. at the other hospital. The said doctors come to the hospital with their team and hire rooms, operation theatre etc. of the hospital as the case may be, and also avail the service of the nursing staff available at the centre. It is submitted that in such cases the patient is brought by the doctors concerned and they only avail the facilities, of stay, operation theatre etc. which are available at the centre and the said surgeon who brings the case himself is responsible for the treatment, surgery and control of complications, if any, in their cases. In such cases these doctors fix and charge their fees etc. directly from the patient and on the basis of these averments, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the op no.2 that they only charged rent etc. for the facilities provided hence, they are not responsible for any negligent act of the doctor concerned, the OP no.1 but we are not in agreement with this argument of the ld. counsel for the OP no.2 as the hospitals are not the hotels where anyone in the form of a doctor can come and commit any negligent act and the hotelier can simply say that they only rented the room and are not concerned with the person taking room in a hotel on rent of committing any wrong. The hospitals owe a social as well as moral responsibility towards the society and to any patient of providing the proper care ensuring the proper treatment to be provided by the doctor who performs

(19)

a surgery or provides treatment to the patient. They simply can not run away from their responsibility of ensuring the faith of the people at large of getting proper treatment in a hospital where the patient pays for the facilities provided by the hospital where an out side doctor performs surgery or provides treatment. Therefore, the OP no.2 are also responsible for the negligent act of the doctor OP no.1 who performed the surgery in their hospital.

So far as, the OP no.3 to 5 are concerned, the complainant has not been specifically able to prove their deficiency in service, therefore, we do not find the OP no.3 to 5 to be negligent in providing treatment to the complainant. In fact the complainant has not castigated the OP no.5 as negligent in providing treatment, therefore, the OP no.5 is not at all responsible for the negligent service. Ld. counsel for the complainant has cited the case, III(2016) CPJ 71 (NC), Hari Ram Gupta (Dr.) Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Rawat & Ors., wherein it was held that the doctor concerned should have been more cautious during surgery and therefore, it was found to be a case of medical negligence. Similarly in this case also the OP no.1 was not able to properly diagnose the problem and therefore, was in fact negligent in conducting surgery whereby the complications arose causing immense pain.   

On the basis of the discussions made above, it is clear that the OP no.1 & 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation.

Now the questions arises as to what compensation, the complainant is entitled to. In this regard, we find that

(20)

Rs.30,000.00 was spent by the complainant while being treated by the OP no.1 & 2 and Rs.80,000.00 was spent in getting treatment at the OP no.3 and Rs.1,20,000.00 in getting treatment at the OP no.4 and Rs.36,86,499.00 at the OP no.5. The complainant has therefore, asked for a compensation of about Rs.83,86,499.00 with 12% interest. The OP no.1 & 2 can not be made liable for the expenses incurred in getting the treatment at the OP no.3 to 5 but they are certainly liable for making payment for expenses incurred at the OP no.2 and also for the compensation to be awarded to the complainant for the condition in which the complainant has been brought in by the consequences of the operation conducted on him by the OP no.1 & 2 as is revealed from the photos filed by the complainant. Considering the circumstances and the pitiable condition of the complainant, we find it appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000.00 in addition to Rs.30,000.00, out of which Rs.6,30,000.00 shall be paid by the OP no.1 whereas Rs.4,00,000.00 shall be paid by the OP no.2. The entire amount to be paid within a month otherwise the OPs no.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the awarded amount.

ORDER

The complaint is allowed against the OPs no.1 & 2 only and dismissed against the OPs no.3 to 5. The complainant shall receive a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rs. Ten lacs) in addition to Rs.30,000.00 (Rs. Thirty thousand)  from the OPs no.1 & 2,  out of which Rs.6,30,000.00 shall be paid by the OP no.1 whereas Rs.4,00,000.00 shall be

(21)

paid by the OP no.2. The entire amount to be paid within a month otherwise the OPs no.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the awarded amount.

 Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                 (Raj Kamal Gupta)

               Presiding Member                     Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.2