P R Venugopal vs Raju K S

HEARD .

RESPONDENT No.1/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint on the ground of medical negligence against Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1 as well as against Respondent No.2/ Hospital/ Opposite Party No.2.

THE consumer complaint was contested by the petitioner. District Forum vide order dated 07.02.2005, allowed the consumer complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioner as well as respondent no.2 filed appeal before the State Commission, which vide impugned order dated 16.06.2011, allowed the same in part.

NOT satisfied with the impugned order, petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Commission.

WE have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

AFTER perusing the impugned order, it is manifestly clear that State Commission had given contradictory findings in its order. The State Commission in para no.9 of the impugned order amongst other things has observed; "On the basis of evidence produced it is not possible to conclude that the first opposite party as such neglected the woman and did not conduct the caesarean surgery in time."

WHEREAS , in para no.10 of the impugned order, the State Commission concluded that; "A failure to monitor foetal heart rate from the date of admission amounts to negligence."

IN addition, as per para no.11 of the impugned order, the State Commission observed as under; "In the instant case, the failure to bestow adequate attention is evident from the fact that foetal heart beat monitoring was not done after the date of admission when the woman was admitted with pain and effacement although the evidence is not sufficient to hold that the baby died due to the negligence of the opposite parties."

AS per impugned order, the State Commission itself has given contradictory findings with regard to medical negligence. On the one hand, it states that there is medical negligence in this case, whereas in the same breadth it gives a finding that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner.

THEREAFTER , in view of the contradictory findings given by the State Commission, there is no option but to set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission and to remand the matter back to the State Commission to decide the same afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties, in accordance with the provisions of law.

PRESENT revision petition stands allowed accordingly.

BOTH parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29.05.2015.

DASTI to both parties.