Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Per Dr.S.K.Kakade, Hon'ble Member

1. Being aggrieved by the order in the Consumer Complaint No. CC/ 12/ 24 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai, Mumbai dated 12th August 2015, dismissing the complaint, the present appeal has been preferred by the original complainant under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, challenging the validity and legality of the order.

2. Facts necessary for deciding this appeal are as under:-

Appellant, original complainant Mr. Siddique Ahmed consulted the opposite Party number 2, ENT surgeon Dr. Rajeev Nerurkar at Bombay hospital Mumbai, which is opposite party number 1; for reduced hearing on the right side. After examining the patient and going through the audiometry reports available with the patient audiometry, was again performed at Bombay Hospital and surgery of the right ear was suggested by OP no. 2. The said operation (Stapedectomy Right side) was performed on 9th of February 2010 at OP no. 1 hospital, Bombay Hospital by OP no.2 and the patient was discharged on 10th of February 2010.

3. The patient complainant was again admitted on 15th of February 2010 for the complaints of severe giddiness and was treated in the hospital for three days, discharged on 18thFebruary 2010. Prior to consulting OP no.2, and also after the surgery, patient complainant consulted various ENT specialists and hospitals. After finding that, post-surgery there was loss of hearing on right side, even on comparing audiometry reports before operation and after operation, there was loss of hearing on right side, the complainant approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and filed consumer complaint OP no.1 and OP no.2, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service.

10. Learned advocate for Appellant- complainant submitted that OP no.2 assured the complainant that he will be able to hear even whisper after the minor operation of Stapedectomy was performed. As per the assurance by the OP no.2, it was expected that patient will be able to hear that sounds at 25 to 30 decibels. Learned advocate of complainant appellant invited our attention to audiometry reports done at various institutions before operation and after operation. Page number 85, shows the report of audiometry done at department of Otolaryngology, K E M hospital Mumbai, done on 2nd December 2008 that reports ability of hearing on right side 60 decibel; on left side 56 decibel and it reads as "Bilateral moderately severe mixed Hearing Loss". Page number 70 of compilation shows the audiometry report two months after the operation, on 3rd April 2010, and the ability to hear was recorded as on right side 91 decibel and on left side 76 decibel. Remarks of the said report read as "Right- profound sensory neural hearing loss, left severe mixed hearing loss". The learned advocate for appellant contended that, it was due to hurried and wrong performance of the operation, there was complete loss of hearing of right year.

26. As to POINT No.2 (Order of District Consumer Forum) Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after going through the pleadings, indoor case records along with various investigations- audiometry reports, evidence in the form of expert medical opinion from JJ hospital Mumbai, medical literature placed on record and various case laws submitted by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the opposite parties have provided reasonable care to the patient of hearing loss on both sides due to the disease Otosclerosis and pleased to dismiss the complaint. We find that learned forum has not considered, the lack of informed consent and proper documentation in the form of advice at the time of discharge of the patient. We therefore set aside the order of learned District Forum and hold the opposite parties responsible forthe deficiency in service as has been pointed out by learned advocate of complainant, we accept the same. Answer to the POINT no.2 is NEGATIVE.