State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Durga Bai vs Dr.Smt.Kavita Bapat on 7 March, 2023
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1075 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 20.04.2016 passed in C.C.No.718/2012 by District Commission, Indore) SMT. DURGABAI, W/O SHRI GENDALAL MANDHANYA, R/O 282, BAJRANG NAGAR, INDORE (M.P.) ... APPELLANT. Versus 1. DR. SMT. KAVITA BAPAT, 2. DR. SURENDRA BAPAT BOTH R/O BAPAT HOSPITAL, BAPAT CHOURAHA, SUKHLIYA, INDORE (M.P.) .... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Appellant through her husband Gendalal Mandhanya. Respondent no.2 Dr.Surendra Bapat appears on behalf of respondents. O R D E R (Passed On 07.03.2023)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:
This appeal filed by the complainant is directed against the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (For short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.718/2012 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.
-2-2. The case of the complainant/appellant in short is such that on the assurance of the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-doctor that she will remove the uterus by machine in one day and will discharge her on the very next day, she got admitted in the opposite parties' hospital on 30.05.2012. It was told that total expenses including medicines will be of Rs.12,000/-. She had deposited Rs.12,000/- on the very same day. On 30.05.2012 the opposite party no.1-doctor performed surgery and it was told that tomorrow she will be discharged. On 30.05.2012, itself, the nurses given her tea and biscuits after that she started vomiting of which complaint was made by her husband to the opposite parties and a request was made to refer the patient to a higher center but they did not pay any heed. It is further submitted that with interference of police, the doctors referred the patient to Arbindo Hospital on 01.06.2012. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties-doctors filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief of expenses incurred in treatment in the hospitals along with compensation and costs.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that the complainant was admitted on 30.05.2012 in their hospital for hysterectomy. Their hospital is well-equipped and the opposite party no.1 is practicing as Gynecologist since last 27 years. It is submitted that after surgery, the patient was suffering from vomiting and loose motions, which is general -3- infection. The family members of the complainant called the police and took the patient to Arbindo Hospital. The complainant was suffering from gastroenteritis which is written in discharge card of SAMS hospital and the same is not complication of hysterectomy. There is nothing in the SAMS hospital's papers that the problem from which the patient was suffering was due to complication of surgery. The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and it is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint filed by the complainant directing the opposite parties to pay jointly or severally Rs.5,045/- incurred in treatment within one month along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the 01.06.2012 till payment. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- has also been awarded.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
6. The complainant/appellant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. On going through the record of appeal we find that during pendency of appeal, the complainant has filed an application IA-2 along with documents (medical bills) which were not filed before the District Commission.
7. We have carefully perused the application and the documents filed by the complainant on record. On due consideration of the aforesaid -4- documents accompanied with application filed by the complainant, we are of a considered opinion that the documents deserve to be taken on record since the aforesaid documents were not filed before the District Commission. In this view of the matter we are of a considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh after considering the documents filed by the complainant before this Commission.
8. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the matter be remanded back to the District Commission. Record of the case be sent to the District Commission at the earliest. Copy of application filed along with accompanied documents in original be also sent to the District Commission along with record. Original application and copies of documents be retained in this appeal.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 06.04.2023.
10. The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties be afforded opportunity to contest their respective claims.
11. It is expected from the District Commission to decide the case within a period of three months from the date of appearance of parties.
-5-12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. However, no order as to costs.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey) Presiding Member Member