AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 1(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 18.02.2022, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 112/2012, whereby the Appeal was dismissed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (First), Rajasthan (in short, the ‘District Commission’) was affirmed.
The issue involved in the instant case that the burst appendicitis was due to delay to perform the operation.
The District Forum dismissed the Complaint. The Appeal preferred by the Complainant before the State Commission was also dismissed. Therefore, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material on record.
The case of Complainant that on 02.09.2003, he suffered acute abdominal pain and admitted in Shubham Hospital (OP-1) at 8 am. The physician Dr. Ajit Kothari (OP-2) examined him and referred the Complainant to a surgeon (OP-3) who advised surgery and as asked Complainant deposit Rs.9000/- on the same day. The grouse of Complainant was the OP-3 should have operated immediately on 2.9.2003 itself but surgery was delayed without any reason. It was performed on 3.9.2003 night, for the burst appendicitis. Thus it was deficiency and negligence of hospital and the treating doctors.
On careful perusal of the material on record interalia Order of District Forum, it is evident that on the same day (2.9.2003) USG of abdomen and pelvis was reported to be normal, further it was advised to ruleout GI (gastro-intestinal) Pathology. The blood tests reports showed Total leucocyte Count (TLC ) 9800/cmm; it was not very high and not diagnostic of acute appendicitis and need for emergency surgical intervention. Therefore, the patient was treated conservatively for one day and operated on next day. It was the standard of surgical practice in the cases of abdominal pain which the OP-2 and 3 followed in the instant case.
It is evident from record that on 02.09.2003 the physician Dr. Ajit Kothari and Dr. S.P. Mathur have examined the complainant. Surgery was advised but due to personal reasons ,the complainant himself decided to wait. The patient was operated on next date, it was successful and the Complainant was discharged from the hospital on 18.09.2003 in normal condition.He was taking normal diet.
As per discharge summery (Exhibit-6) a small wound was mentioned on the skin of his abdomen, therefore regular dressing was advised, but the Complainant did not do it regularly. The wound got aggravated, therefore, on 5.11.2003 secondary Suturing was done and the wound completely healed. It was not due to any negligence during previous surgery.
The District Forum relied upon the opinion of Board of 3 experts from Medical College,Jodhpur which opened that there was no negligence from the treating doctors. The board also opined that the symptoms may be attributed to post-operative adhesions, which is a routine sequel of such operation and does not require any specific treatment. Thus, I do not find any merit in the instant case.
The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited. I would like to rely upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[ 2011 11 SCC 269] and the recent decision in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.[ Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] observed as under:-
“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Based on the discussion above, the Revision Petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. However, there shall be no order as to costs.