NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 995 OF 2011
(Against the Order dated 20/01/2011 in Appeal No. 1292/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. M/S. PARIJATHA MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL &
ANR.
Doctors Colony, Miryalaguda Post Nalgonda
Andhra Pradesh
2. DR. P. JARIJATHA, W/O. DR. GANESHWAR R/o. Doctors Colony, Miryalaguda Post Nalgonda
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. SMT. B. RADHIKA
R/o. Alur Village, Gattu Mandalam Mahaboobnagar ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S. K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 02 Sep 2011
ORDER
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below, the opposite parties- M/s Parijatha Multispeciality Hospital and Doctor have approached this Commission through the present petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The consumer case filed before the District Consumer Forum related to alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service in the treatment given to a certain Mrs. B. Radhika-complainant after he had undergone a Lower Segment Caesarean Surgery at the hands of the petitioner- hospital. The complication Postpartum Haemorrhage (PPH) developed which it appears was not taken care urgently and immediately and in the manner it is required according to the standard medical protocol. The complainant was shifted to a higher medical center, Yashoda Hospital for extensive treatment where after great difficulty and extensive
1
treatment, her life could be saved. She had to undergone a heavy expenditure in the said hospital. The District Consumer Forum on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and the material brought
-3-
on record, had partly allowed the complaint and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,09,183/- in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party-petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was partly allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 20.01.2011 thereby affirming the finding of medical negligence and deficiency in service in treatment but going by the other circumstances and that the expenditure incurred by the complainant at Yashoda Hospital was Rs.96,633/- only, the State Commission reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.4,09,183/- to Rs.1,50,000/- only. Even then, this did not satisfy the petitioners and they have approached this Commission.
We have heard Mrs. K. Radha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and have considered her submissions. She would assail the impugned orders passed by fora below on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record and the findings of medical negligence and deficiency in service is not justified on the strength of the material placed on record. We do not think so. In our view, both
-4-
the fora below have given cogent reasons with which we entirely agree in upholding the petitioners guilty of medical negligence. The State Commission did well in upholding the said finding and reducing the amount of compensation. In our view, the findings recorded by fora below does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Sectioni 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
2
......................J
R. C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
S. K. NAIK
MEMBER
3
Comments