AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.01.2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1688 of 2006 - Mansing Rama Khade Vs. Dr. Ramesh Rajaram Bhoite by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner met with an accident on 19.10.2002. After accident, traffic police gave blow on right side of complainant ''s ear on account of which, there was bleeding from his ear. Complainant was admitted in the hospital of OP/respondent. Complainant had no problem at his neck, but he was operated. OP charged Rs.63,986.96 for treatment. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that after accident, complainant was taken to Local Health Centre where he was advised to be taken to District Hospital. Looking to the condition of the complainant, relatives of the complainant admitted complaint in OP hospital. There was internal haemorrhage. Due to vomiting he suffered Aspiration Pneumonia and to meet the complication, he was required to undergo Tracheostomy and was properly treated and denied any negligence on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that operation was conducted without taking consent from complainant and OP performed unnecessary operation and committed deficiency; even then, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.
PERUSAL of record reveals that after accident complainant was given blow on the right ear as a result of which, there was bleeding from his ear. As per written statement, Local Health Centre looking to critical condition of complainant referred him to District Hospital, but looking to complainant ''s condition instead of taking at a distance place he was admitted in OP hospital. OP treated him properly.
AS far consent is concerned, learned State Commission mentioned in the impugned order that brother -in -law of the complainant after receiving full information about condition of complainant gave his consent for treatment. As complainant was unconscious at the time of admission, consent given by brother -in -law of the complainant is to be treated sufficient and concerned hospital was not required to know whether complainant ''s wife and son were available or not. Merely because consent has not been obtained from wife or son of the complainant, no negligence on the part of OP can be imputed in operating after taking consent of brother -in -law of the complainant.
COMPLAINANT could not place any evidence on record to substantiate that there was any negligence on the part of OP in treatment. Learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint and learned State Commission rightly affirmed order of District Forum. Looking to concurrent findings of the Fora below, revision petition is not fit for admission and liable to be dismissed at this stage.
CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.