|
Pronounced on 8th June,
2022
This Revision Petition has
been filed by the Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite
Parties”) against the Order dated 11.02.2019 passed by State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (for short “the State
Commission”) in First Appeal No. 904/2018.
Facts in short :
1.
The complainant -Opponent was a private school
Teacher & was a member of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC)
and she was eligible for treatment in any authorized hospital. In March
2014 she took treatment at Petitioner- No.1 hospital for Nasal Block and Sinus related
ailments.
2.
It was alleged that the Petitioner /OP-2 negligently
performed the nasal operation and damaged the nerves of the eyes. Therefore
she developed double vision, unbearable pain and left eye rotation was
stopped. She was kept in hospital for long time. Thereafter, she took
treatment from another doctor and cured from double vision, but her left
eyeball was fixed, could not move, which made difficult for her routine
works. Being aggrieved the complainant filed the Complaint before the
District Forum, Raipur.
3.
The OPs denied negligence and any deficiency during
treatment of the patient. It was submitted that the patient had problems in
her eyes prior to the operation.
4.
The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and
directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 66,351/- as a cost of treatment
alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. It
also awarded Rs. 2 lakh towards the compensation for the damages on account
of deficiency in service during treatment of sinus and other ailments and
Rs. 3,000/- allowed towards cost of litigation.
5.
Being aggrieved, the OPs filed appeal before state Commission
for setting aside the Order of the District Forum and the Complainant also
filed appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The State Commission
dismissed the Appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement and partly
allowed the Appeal filed by the OPs by disallowing the order of Rs.
66,351/-was disallowed, but Rs.2 lakh order was kept as it is. Being
aggrieved, the OPs filed the instant Revision Petition.
Held :
1.
The National Commission perused the Facts and
documents. It refereed to the expert opinion of The Medical Board which was headed by Dr.
Nidhi Pandey, Professor/Chairman Specialist in Eyes of Samiriti
Mahavidhyalaya, Raipur. The members - Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Dr.
Harshwardhan Gupta and Dr. Reshu Malhotra gave their separate opinions. It
was observed that the defects in the left eye of the complainant developed
due to negligence of the OP-2 while conducting operation of nasal
block. The opinion is reproduced as below:
1. The
Nasal Sinus surgery was performed by the ENT Surgeon at Balaji Hospital;
2. On
perusal of the documents placed before us the patient suffered complication
in her left eye after the nasal sinus operation;
3. As per
the medical literature this complication may be occurred in 5% cases after
the Nasal Sinus Surgeries.
2. It was held that, Admittedly, as
the ESIC covers the cost of treatment (Rs. 66,351/-), we agree with the State Commission, which
disallowed the treatment costs from the award of compensation. The National
Commission refused to exercise its Revisional Jurisdiction as the
concurrent findings were given by both the Foras.
This judgment gives one o the
important procedural aspect that the National Commission will entertain the
Revision Petitions only when it feels that intervention is necessary on
account of jurisdictional error,
or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.
Thanks and regards,
Adv. ROHiT
ERANDE. © Pune.
|
Comments
Post a Comment