PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by Sai Hospital, UTAI in URAI Tehsil of Chhattisgarh and Dr.R.Bhattacharya, the opposite parties before the District Consumer Forum Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the District Forum’) challenging the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur  (for short ‘the State Commission’) vide which the State Commission has affirmed the District Forum’s order allowing the complaint of the respondent.

Brief facts of the case are that --- Husband of the complainant Ramesh Dewangan was admitted for treatment of Hernia in the hospital of petitioner No.1 and was operated by petitioner No.2 on 21.1.2004.  The patient was hospitalized until 2.2.2004.  While the complainant alleged that the patient was forcefully discharged from the hospital on the ground that he cannot afford the expenses of the private hospital, the Hospital claimed that he was discharged on his own request.  Since the condition of the patient continued to deteriorate after his discharged from the hospital and petitioner No.2, Dr.R.Bhattacharya refused to further attend to him on the ground that he stood discharged from the hospital, he was taken to Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai on 14.2.2004 where he was admitted as patient of “post operative case of right inguinal obstructed hernia with small bowel fistula, sepsis, acute renal failure, dehydration and malnutrition.  The general condition being poor, he was put on conservative management and discharged on 20.3.2004 when he had gained substantial improvement with advice to dress the wound every day and take high protein diet and multivitamin.  However, the patient again reported in a very bad condition on 14.4.2004, but despite best attention subsequently  expired  at  7.30 a.m. on the next  day  i.e. on 15.4.2004.

          Alleging medical negligence on part of the first hospital i.e. petitioner No.1 and its Doctor – petitioner No.2, the complainant who is the widow of the deceased patient filed a complaint before the District Forum and sought a compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-.  The District Forum after consideration of the evidence produced by both the sides arrived at the conclusion that “post operative precautions were ignored by the opposite parties and proper advice was not given to Ramesh Devangan which is why his condition deteriorated and ultimately he expired.”  For this deficiency on part of the opposite parties, the District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid within a period of one month and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation.  Aggrieved against this order of the District Forum, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the State Commission who while dismissing their appeal, further imposed Rs.1000/- as cost of the appeal to be paid to the complainant.

          Aggrieved against this order of the State Commission that the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

          Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued on the same contentions which had been raised before the State Commission.  According to him, the State Commission failed to appreciate that there was no deficiency in service on part of the petitioners since the death of the patient is attributed to anemia, hyoproteinemia and malnutrition and not to the treatment/operation conducted by the opposite parties.  Further since the deceased got himself discharged from their hospital in good condition, the complications which arose thereafter was due to the carelessness of the deceased himself and  not because of any short coming in the conduct of the surgery. As a measure of abundant care, the deceased at the time of discharge had been advised to come for daily dressing for the wounds which he did not follow That the deceased was negligent in the follow-up of his treatment is clear from the fact that even after being discharged from the Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital on 20.3.2004, he did not abide by their advice to report every week for follow-up at their surgery OPD.  The counsel submits that the chain of events amply prove that there was absolutely no deficiency in service on part of the petitioner and it was the negligence on part of the patient in not abiding by the post operative/treatment advice given by the doctors which resulted in serious complications resulting in his death.  The State Commission has wrongly held the petitioners liable on the flimsy ground of “not adequately warning and advising the deceased patient regarding the probability of recurrence of hernia or fatal complications thereof.”  He prays that the order having been passed erroneously deserves to be set aside.

          Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant on the other hand has submitted that both the fora below have arrived at the concurrent and conclusive finding that there has been negligence on part of the petitioners. This has been done after a thorough consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties before them.  The opinion expressed by Dr.R.P.Singh in the summary at Annex.P2 clearly indicates that the illness was related to the surgery and its post operative complications. The patient had been operated for obstructed inguinal hernia following which he developed complications leading to small bowel fistula sepsis and acute nenal failure.  This opinion of Dr. JLN Hospital which has not been controverted clearly proves that it was the operation conducted by the petitioners/opposite parties which was the basic cause of future complications and the petitioners cannot escape from their responsibility.  He, therefore, submits that no interference in revision is warranted in the orders passed by the fora below.

          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  We have also perused the records of the case.

          Husband of the complainant was a poor Mason.  On complaint of suffering from hernia,  he was admitted into the hospital of petitioner No.1 and was operated on 21.1.2004.  He remained in the hospital until 2.2.2004, when as per the complainant, the patient was forcefully discharged on the plea of not being able to afford the treatment while the opposite parties  contend that the patient was discharged on his own request.  On this point, we find that the District Forum has not accepted the contention of the complainant based on the history of the case recorded by JLN Hospital at the time of his admission.  We have perused the discharge certificate issued by the petitioner – hospital at page 56 of the paper book.  There is no whisper in this discharge slip with regard to the patient being discharged against medical advice on his own request.  In our view, if the patient has not been fully treated and is not in a fit condition to be discharged and yet decides to leave the hospital, it is unbelievable that the hospital records would not make a mention thereof since it is well within their knowledge that in case of any complications subsequent thereto, they would be called upon to explain their negligence. 

          Further, the treatment slip at page 59 of the paper book dated 12.2.2004 prepared by petitioner No.2 prescribes a number of medicines and injections even though it states that the patient was not brought for his examination.  Since the petitioner No.2 himself operated on the patient on 21.1.2004, he ought to have insisted on the physical presence of the patient for his examination since the treatment provided was based on vomiting by the patient. 

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC has held as under :-

“A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for that purpose.  Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties viz. a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to be given or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient.  The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.”

Viewed in this backdrop, it cannot but be held that the petitioners, in particular Dr.R.Bhattacharya, petitioner No.2 has failed to exercise reasonable degree of care in the treatment of the patient and thus has rightly been held to be negligent.

Be that as it may the ground advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not stand scrutiny since they have been dealt with by the fora below who have held the petitioners deficient in rendering service.  We do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by fora below warranting interference at this stage of revision.

Revision petition accordingly is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own cost.