Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is a specific case of the complainant that so far as the liposuction and abdominoplasty operation is concerned and if there are any deficiencies, negligence and/or sub-standard service rendered while conducting the said operation, it is the opponent no.2/Dr.Kapasi who is responsible.

Therefore, while considering the present complaint the State Commission has to consider it in a two parts, namely, first part will have to be considered as to whether liposuction and abdominoplasty operation which has been carried out by opponent no.2 suffers from deficiency in service as provided in Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so that liability can be fixed as against opponent no.2 and, secondly, the State Commission will have to consider as to whether post-operative treatment given by either of the opponent nos. 1 and 3 was of the particular standard or there were deficiencies on their part and lastly, if there were post-operative deficiencies on the part of the hospital which of the hospitals, namely, whether opponent no.1 and/or opponent no.3 is responsible for the said liability.

30. The certificates have been placed on record by opponent no.2 to show that he is an expert in cosmetic surgery of Liposuction. No doubt that the opponent no.2 is possessed of M.S. Degree but that is a general degree of surgery. Liposuction and cosmetic surgery is a further expertisation.

In order to show that the opponent no.2 is having a further expertisation, opponent no.2 has produced on record the certificate issued by Nair Golden Jubilee Research Foundation and Dr.L.H.Hiranandani Department of Otolaryngology & Head & Neck surgery. It is stated in the certificate that the opponent no.2 has attended the Advanced Course on Rhinoplasty and Cosmetic Facial Surgery conducted by Prof.Hans Holstrom, M.D. from 27th February to 1st March, 1989.

Needless to state that these training certificates speaks about Rhinoplasty and Cosmetic Facial Surgery and not making reference to Liposuction. Another letter dated 02/01/1989 issued by the Vice President of British Association of Cosmetic Surgeons speaks about training given by Mr.Dev Basra, FRCS. and it is communicated that the membership of the British Association of Cosmetic Surgeons will be granted in the next Annual General Meetings to be held in third week of January, 1989. There is one more certificate issued by the American Academy of Cosmetic surgery and by this certificate a corresponding membership has been granted. However, none of these certificates speaks about training in Liposuction surgery, which has been carried out in the present case.

Therefore, what we find is that that though opponent no.2 may be possessed of M.S. Degree, he is not possessed of any specific degree, diploma in Liposuction surgery and/or any Diploma or Certificate Course which is approved and recognized by the Medical Council of India. In this respect, the certificates which are referred to above are not shown as being approved by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that though opponent no.2 may have represented as expert and practiced in Cosmetic surgery, Liposuction, etc. yet he is not an expert in the subject. Therefore, he could not evaluate as to whether the patient will stand to the Liposuction of 2500cc and without such evaluation performed such operation. In the result, we find that, that for the death of deceased Sheela Khanna, opponent no.2s deficiency in service is responsible and he is liable for the same.