- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M/S. PARIJATHA MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & ANR. v. SMT. B. RADHIKA
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners, M/s Parijatha Multispeciality Hospital and Dr. P. Jarijatha, were found liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service in the treatment of Mrs. B. Radhika, who underwent a Lower Segment Caesarean Surgery. Postoperative complications, specifically Postpartum Haemorrhage (PPH), were not addressed with the urgency and standard protocol required. The complainant was subsequently shifted to Yashoda Hospital, where after extensive treatment and considerable expenditure, her life was saved.
The District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,09,183/- to the complainant. The petitioners appealed to the State Commission, which affirmed the finding of medical negligence but reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/- based on the actual expenditure incurred at Yashoda Hospital (Rs. 96,633/-). Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed the present revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the findings of medical negligence and deficiency in service against the petitioners were justified on the evidence and material on record.
- Whether the reduction of compensation by the State Commission was appropriate in light of the circumstances and expenditures incurred.
- Whether there existed any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the fora below warranting interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were not based on a correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material on record.
- They challenged the findings of medical negligence and deficiency in service as unjustified.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission carefully considered the submissions and evidence. It found that both the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission had provided cogent reasons supporting the findings of medical negligence and deficiency in service against the petitioners. The State Commission's decision to uphold the negligence finding while reducing compensation based on actual expenditures was deemed appropriate. The Commission observed no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the fora below that would justify interference under its revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Holding and Implications
The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
This decision directly upholds the findings of medical negligence and the reduced compensation amount awarded by the State Commission. No new precedent was established, and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Commission was exercised to confirm that the lower fora acted within their legal bounds without error warranting interference.
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
Alert