Heard the arguments on admission. There was a delay of 103 days in filing the instant Revision Petition. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and the Order of the District Forum was confirmed. The contention of the Petitioner is that since May, 2011, his son (for short, the ‘patient’) was suffering from right kidney stone, but despite the repeated requests to the OPs did not perform the operation for removal of kidney stone. Therefore, his health deteriorated and finally, he expired on 11.09.2017. I have perused the entire medical record inter alia the Orders of both the fora below. In May 2011, the patient was referred to Dr. A. K. Mandal (OP-2) at Department of Urology of PGI for management of right kidney stones. He was first offered ESWL for treatment of the kidney stones and after three sessions of ESWL during June - Oct 2012, he still had some residual stones left in the kidney, which could be removed by percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)/ open surgery. These procedures require general anaesthesia in prone position lateral position. The Department of Urology did not opt for these invasive operative procedures on the patient under general anaesthesia. It was decided that the surgery would be decided only if there is a severe dysfunction in the right kidney. Thus, there was pure risk at that time. From the medical record, it is evident that the patient was suffering from Axonal injury-atlantoaxial dislocation, which led to quadriparalysis (paralysis of whole body below neck). Therefore, he was unable to bear anesthesia, required for open surgery to remove the renal stone. It could have led to collapse of lungs and life-threatening pneumonia. In my view, as such non-removal of kidney stone was not the cause of death in the instant patient. Moreover, his left kidney was normal and functioning. Instead of surgical removal, for the reasons stated (supra), he was kept under conservative management. The patient had fixed deformities of spine like Kyphoscoliosis associated with quadriparesis, had generally poor respiratory response. Such patients carry very high risk of general anesthesia and serious post-operative complications. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is dismissed in limine. | 
