NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4945 OF 2012 (From the order dated 30.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 3135/2007 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Moola Ram S/o Sh. Umrao Singh, R/o Village Azmabad Mokhuta, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh Haryana ... Petitioner Versus 1. Singhal Medical Surgical Maternity Centre, Narnaul, Haryana Through Dr. K.C. Singhal 2. Dr. K.C. Singhal, C/o Singhal Medical Surgical Maternity Centre Narnaul, Haryana 3. Dr. Deepak Singhal C/o Singhal Medical Surgical Maternity Centre, Narnaul, Haryana 4. Dr. (Mrs.) Ganga Singhal C/o Singhal Medical Surgical Maternity Centre, Narnaul, Haryana 5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, Haryana Respondent(s) BEFORE HONLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 8th AUGUST 2013 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred as he State Commission in First Appeal No. 3135/2007, Moola Ram Vs. Singhal Medical Surgical Maternity Centre & Ors. vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Narnaul on 21.08.2007, dismissing the Consumer Complaint No. 18/2006, filed by the present petitioner was upheld. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant was stated to be suffering from acute appendicular lump coupled with left Renal Calculus of 2.5 cm. He was under treatment from Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre, Jaipur, where he was admitted on 31.07.2005 and was discharged on 05.08.2005. The complainant alleged that thereafter, he contacted the Opposite Parties/Respondents and they wrongly advised him on 14.08.2005 for surgery, saying that it was required to save his life. The complainant was operated upon on 15.08.2005 for appendicectomy. He had shown all the papers of Bhandari Hospital to the Opposite Parties. After the operation, the complainant developed post- appendicectomy fiscal fistula, which was detected on 18.08.2005. The complainant then went to the SDMH, Jaipur for better management, where he was treated as indoor patient from 20.08.2005 to 31.08.2005 and from 22.09.2005 to 25.09.2005. He was forced to spend Rs. 1.5 lakhs for his treatment as indoor patient and medicines etc. The complainant filed a Consumer Complaint against the respondents, but the same was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 21.08.2007. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2007. It has been stated by the State Commission in their order that the complainant did not appear before the State Commission at the time of hearing. 3. On the request of the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to contest the case. At the time of hearing, learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our attention to the statement made by Dr. K. M. Bhandari of Bhandari Hospital in which, it has been stated that the operation is usually done after 4 to 8 weeks in the condition in which the petitioner was there. He has also drawn our attention to the statement of Dr. Rajesh Bhojwani, of SDMH, Jaipur saying that the complainant was admitted in their hospital from 20.08.2005 to 31.08.2005 and then again from 22.09.2005 to 25.09.2005. The doctor has stated that he could not tell, how the fistula had developed. He, further, stated in response to a question that when pain is continuing in the case of appendicular lump, the operation was justified. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the reply to the complaint filed by the Opposite Parties, in which they have stated that the patient left the hospital against medical advice on 18.08.2005, and his condition at that time was table and good According to the learned counsel, there was an apparent contradiction in the stand taken by respondents/opposite parties in the written statement. 4. We have carefully examined the material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The record of the case shows that the operation was conducted by respondent no. 3, Dr. Deepak Singhal, who is supposed to be an expert in his field with a post-graduate degree. It has been stated by the petitioner that when he was admitted in their hospital, there was marked tenderness on his whole abdomen. It is also stated that ultrasound conducted on the petitioner showed localized collection in right iliac fosse and pelvis. According to the respondent doctors, operation is a must in such cases. It is also stated that the petitioner left their hospital on 18.08.2005 against medical advice. Dr. Rajesh Bhojwani of SDMH, Jaipur has also stated that the operation is a must in cases where there is appendicular abscess and the condition is deteriorating. It is clear from the facts of the case that the charge of medical negligence against the hospital and the doctors is not substantiated, applying the well-known olam test as laid down in the case of Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee, as reported in [(1957) I WLR 582: (1957) 2 All ER 118 (QBD)]. 5. In the present case, it is clear that while applying the standard of ordinary skilled man, the action taken by the opposite parties does not lead us to believe that there has been any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 6. We, therefore, find that there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission. The Revision Petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. .. (K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .. (DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER PSM