Judgment:
Oral Order:
Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President
1. In this matter notice before admission was issued and it has been served on respondents. For last two dates respondents are absent. Therefore, we heard Mr. P.M. Jadhav-Advocate for the appellant.
2. Appellant is an original complainant in consumer complaint no.44/2008 decided by District Consumer Forum, Satara. Appellant has filed this complaint for medical negligence as against the respondent. Son of the appellant Mst.Dattatraya was admitted in the respondents hospital on 09/07/2007, since he was suffering from ailment of pre-diagnosed appendix. It appears that the respondent is a Physician and, therefore, respondent cannot perform the surgery. Having found that surgery is probably required to be done, respondent called Dr.Ajit Mehta from Sangli. Said Dr.Ajit Mehta visited the respondents hospital on 14/7/2007 at about 8.00 p.m. He examined Mst.Dattatraya and advised that he requires operation of appendix. However, it appears that the appellant/complainant was not ready with the operation because of financial condition and, therefore, requested to give discharge. Accordingly, patient was discharged and such endorsement is reflected on the case paper. Thereafter, it appears that after discharge Mst.Dattatraya became serious and appendix was burst and, therefore, she was immediately taken to Dr.Pawars hospital at Pune and, thereafter, further operation was carried out. Now Mst.Dattatraya is alright. Thereafter present complaint was filed with a grievance that there is medical negligence on the part of the respondent.
3. District Consumer Forum has found that the respondent was a Physician and therefore, called surgeon to examine Mst.Dattatraya. After examination, it was advised that the operation for appendix is necessary. However, case paper of the respondent shows that because of the financial difficulties and poverty, they were not in a position to go for operation and, therefore, discharge was given. All these facts shows that the only patient was admitted and after admission of the patient when it was conveyed that operation is necessary, and he is not a surgeon, he called an appropriate surgeon for the said purpose. Other surgeon Dr.Mehta has also come from Sangli to Khatav of 100 k.ms. distance. Therefore, it follows that if the appellant had shown willingness for information, Dr.Mehta could have performed the operation, but as per the case paper endorsement appellant was in difficulty and, therefore, operation could not be performed and whatever thereafter happened, we are least concerned. From the facts stated above, respondent has taken reasonable care to get the things diagnosed and, thereafter, to provide services of a surgeon to the appellant was that the operation of Mst.Dattatraya can be performed. We agree with the District Consumer Forum that this is not a case of medical negligence on the part of the respondent. Except this, no other point was advanced before this State Commission by the Ld.counsel. We do not find any merit in the case. Hence, the order:-
Order
Appeal stands dismissed in limine.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.