DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. There is a delay of 22 days in filing this revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay is hereby condoned. 2. The complainant, Smt. Manju, was operated for cesarean section on 30.5.2009 by Dr. Santosh Bishnoi (Smt. Santosh Bishnoi). She had continuous pain after operation, therefore, she was referred to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (in short, ‘ PGIMS’), Rohtak on 6.6.2009. She remained hospitalized till 30.6.2009. She was operated there whereby some foreign body (surgical mop) was removed from her right Iliac Fossa, adherent to terminal Ileum. Even after the operation in PGIMS, she was suffering pain in her right Iliac fossa and she was again operated on 4.7.2009 in Akash Hospital, Hisar. It was found that there was leak in stomach. Thereafter, due to her serious condition, she was referred to Jindal Hospital, Hisar on 6.7.2009 and got operated on 11.7.2009. She was treated there till 25.7.2009. 3. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Sirsa, alleging medical negligence against OP/Dr. Santosh Bishnoi, who was stated to have left the surgical mop in her abdomen due to which, she was operated twice and lost her vision of left eye. 4. The OPs resisted the complaint before the District Forum, Sirsa and denied the medical negligence on the part of OP No. 1. The loss of vision was not due to the operation conducted by OP 1 or at PGIMS, Rohtak. The complainant took the treatment from various hospitals. Therefore, the alleged negligence could not be attributed to OP 1. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed all the OPs to pay jointly and severally Rs.3,25,000/- to the complainant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.10.2009 till payment. Since the opposite party No. 1 is professionally insured with opposite party No. 5, for total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- so, liability of opposite party No. 5 shall be only to the extent of said insured amount. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, OP 1/Dr. Santosh Bishnoi preferred first appeal No. 343 of 2015 before the State Commission, Haryana. The complainant also filed first appeal No. 303 of 2015 before the State Commission for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, complainant filed this revision petition. 8. At admission stage, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, perused the evidence and medical record. It is an admitted fact that OP 1 performed the cesarean operation. Thereafter, the patient was treated at PGIMS, Rohtak as per Ex. C-1. She was operated there for removal of foreign body with peritoneal lavage. Thus, it is clear that the surgical mop was left in the body during the cesarean operation performed by OP 1, which further caused complications and same were treated at PGIMS. The medical record from Jindal Institute of Medical Sciences revealed that patient suffered entro cutaneous fistula after leak, and treated there from 6.7.2009 to 11.7.2009. Also, during the course of hospitalization, she suffered left eye endo opthalmitis and referred for Ophthalmology operation. 9. In our considered view, there is no nexus between the loss of vision and the surgical operation. The patient underwent operations after cesarean operation. Both are separate pathological attitudes. Moreover, the compensation granted by the District Forum is just and adequate for the torture and pain suffered by the complainant. We do not see any cogent reason to enhance the compensation, in the instant case. 10. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. |
