State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New Surya Hospital vs Maya Bai on 9 December, 2025
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL NO. 537/2011
1. New Surya Hospital
Through Manager
Near Arora Petrol Pump
New Bus Stand, Sehore
Tahasil and District Sehore (M.P.)
2. Dr. Sunita Sisodia
Main Road
Ganga Ashram
Sehore (M.P.)
3. Abhijeet Deshmukh
44, Old M.L.A. Quarters
Jawahar Chowk
Bhopal (M.P.) ... Appellants
VERSUS.
Smt. Maya Bai
W/o Rajesh Malviya
R/o Village Lasudia Parihar
Tahasil and District Sehore (M.P.) ... Respondent
BEFORE;
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
SHRI ASHISH BARGALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.
APPELLANTS NO. 2-DR. SUNITA SISODIA AND APPELLANT NO.3-DR.
ABHIJEET DESHMUKH ARE ALSO PRESENT.
NONE FOR RESPONDENT.
: 2 :
ORDER
( 09.12.2025 ) The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.
This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants is directed against the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sehore (for short 'District Commission'), in complaint case No. 178/2010, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') and has directed the opposite parties jointly or severally to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-, with costs of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within one month, failing which the aforesaid amount is directed to be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order, till payment.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant observed pain in her abdomen and therefore, she had shown to opposite party No.2-Dr. Sunita Sisodia on 13.4.2010, in the opposite party No.-hospital. She was advised surgery and therefore, deposited Rs.8,000/- on 13.4.2010 in the opposite party No.1-hospital. On 16.4.2010 Exploratory Laparotomy was performed. However, opposite parties No. 2 and 3-Doctors informed her husband that there is mass in her stomach, therefore, after samples were taken, the incision was closed. After getting investigations done, opposite parties 2 and 3- Doctors prescribed medicines to be taken for 6 months and discharged the complainant on 21.4.2010. Complainant alleged that since she was observing no relief, she had shown : 3 : to various doctors at Indore, Ujjain and thereafter she went to Apex Hospital, Bhopal where she had shown to Dr. Sudhir Lokwani and Dr. Rajesh Bhagchandani. After sonography, Dr. Sudhir Lokwani told that she was having masses of tuberculosis and cancer. He also informed the complainant that if masses are not removed, there is risk of spread of infection. Therefore, she was admitted in Apex Hospital, where Exploratory Laparotomy was performed and the masses were removed. The complainant alleged that opposite parties 2 and 3-Doctors, were lacking in experience, since though they performed operation, but without taking out the mass, they closed the incision and also charged Rs.8,000/- from the complainant. She, therefore, alleged deficiency in service against them.
3. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in their reply before the District Commission submitted that when they opened the abdomen of the complainant, they observed stiff masses. Under these circumstances biopsy of sample is advisable, which was done. The complainant was discharged on 21.4.2010 and the masses were not removed, since there was risk to the complainant's life. It was, thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The opposite party No.3-Doctor, resisted the complaint on the ground that the masses were appearing to be adherent with ureter and kidney. It could be life threatening to remove such mass and therefore, necessary investigations were required to be done. The complainant however, did not come for follow-up afterwards. Therefore, there has been no : 4 : deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/appellants and appellants No. 2 and 3, who are present in person, argued that when the complainant approached them, they performed Exploratory Laparotomy and after incision they found stiff masses. They thought that the same could be cancerous and malignant and therefore samples for biopsy were taken. They referred to ASCO Guidelines, 2022 and argued that it is recommended that when optimal cytoreduction is not feasible due to extensive disease or frozen pelvis, tissue diagnosis should be obtained and the patient managed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or referred to a tertiary oncology center. According to StatPearls - Adhesiolysis dense, matted adhesions carry a high risk of inadvertent enterotomy, particularly when bowl loops are densely adherent. They also referred to Adherence to Oncologic Surgical Guidelines and submitted that ESGO-ESMO-ESP Consensus (2021) and ASCO Guidelines (2022) recommend that when optimal cytoreduction is not feasible due to extensive disease or frozen pelvis, tissue diagnosis should be obtained and the patient be managed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or referred to a tertiary oncology center. Aggressive attempts at resection in such scenarios increase morbidity without improving survival outcomes.
7. They further submitted that according to StatPearls:Adhesiolysis (2023), dense matted adhesions carry a high risk of inadvertent enterotomy, particularly when bowel : 5 : loops are densely adherent, where "the potential harm outweighs the benefit of adhesiolysis". The Bologna Guidelines (World Society of Emergency Surgery, 2018) also highlight that re-operation in the presence of dense adhesions significantly raises the risk of iatrogenic bowel injury, which can result in peritonitis, sepsis and high morality. They submitted that "Per ESGO-ESMO consensus and ASCO guidance, when optimal cytoreduction is not feasible the recommended approach is to obtain tissue diagnosis and proceed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or refer to a specialized center, rather than attempt hazardous resection". "Dense adhesions significantly increase the risk of inadvertent enterotomy and morbidity; proceeding would likely cause disproportionate harm (WSES/Bologna adhesion guidance, prospective enterotomy data, and expert reviews)." "Given the peripheral hospital setting without immediate subspecialty backup for ultra-radical pelvic surgery, stopping after biopsy represents the standard of-care, patient-safety-first decision". The intraoperative decision to limit the procedure to biopsy and close was medically justified, evidence-based, and in line with international oncology and surgical safety guidelines. It prioritized patient welfare, avoided catastrophic bowel injury, and enabled appropriate referral for further oncologic management. Though the initial investigations revealed that she was having tuberculosis but the sonography done on later stage also proved that the masses were having cancerous tissues. The complainant was also advised colonoscopy and C.T. Scan but the complainant never came for follow up after discharge. The treatment papers of other medical practitioners : 6 : also do not indicate that there has been any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. They therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
8. At page-28 (in the record of the District Commission), is and Ultra Sonography report dated 13.4.2010, wherein it is mentioned that Mass is ? attached to Omentum ? Tubo-ovarian mass ? Mesenteric Mass It is pertinent to mention that there are no comments on the nature of mass.
At page 29 (in the record of the District Commission), is the discharge card of the opposite parties/appellants-Hospital. It is admitted fact that the patient underwent Exploratory Laparotomy in the said Hospital. As per appellants it was found that the mass was hard and was also observed to be adherent to kidney and ureter. The Surgeon felt that there was a risk to life if the same was removed, therefore, he went ahead with biopsy and advised further evaluation in the form of colonoscopy at Bhopal. Biopsy was done and sample was sent for histopathological studies. It was advised that further investigations were to be done at Bhopal.
The Histopathology report at page-30 (in the record of the District Commission) is suggestive of Tubercular lesion and Anti-Tuberculosis Treatment (ATT) was thus started. Colonoscopy was advised and it was also advised to review with investigation. As per opposite parties/appellants, the complainant did not come for follow-up.
9. The complainant later went to Apex Hospital where sonography was performed on 17.5.2010 (page-35). Here the : 7 : nature of lesion was described ? Phlegmon however, neoplastic etiology could not be totally ruled out. The complainant was operated for left radical Hemicolectomy (page-38). Histopathology report at page-37 (in the record of the District Commission) shows 'invasive moderately differentiated adeno carcinoma grade II of transverse colon'. Therefore, eventually, it was found that the patient had cancer.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Martin D'Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq (Civil Appeal No. 3541 of 2002) has observed thus in paragraphs 41 and 112:-
"41. A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonable competent practitioner in his filed. For instance, he would be liable if he leaves a surgical gauze inside the patient after an operation vide Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others AIR 1996 SC 2377 or operates on the wrong part of the body, and he would be also criminally liable if he operates on someone for removing an organ for illegitimate trade.
112. The Commission should have realized that different doctors have different approaches, for instance, some have more radical while some have more conservative approaches. All doctors cannot be fitted into a straight-jacketed formula and cannot be penalized for departing from that formula.": 8 :
11. Therefore, merely on the ground that the opposite parties/appellants preferred another mode of treatment, which was not found to be an unreasonable course, they cannot be held liable in the instant matter, if the complainant was cured by some other treatment method. Neither the Histopathology report, nor the sonography report conducted earlier were conclusive. Pertinently, the complainant was also advised colonoscopy, but she never came for follow-ups. Also importantly, no certificate or affidavit of the other treating doctor, pointing out towards alleged negligence has been produced by the complainant. The facts and circumstances thus do not indicate that the opposite parties/appellants have been negligent and deficient in service in the instant matter.
12. The District Commission has therefore, committed illegality by passing the impugned order, which is hereby set aside.
13. As a result, the appeal filed by the opposite parties/appellants is allowed.
14. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
(JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Mercy