Judgment:
H.L. Dattu, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 128 of 1996 dated 23.5.2002. By the impugned order National Consumer Commission has rejected the petition filed by the complainant.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
The appellant/complainant was a teacher by profession. He was aged about 60 years when he was down with physical ailments such as backache and difficulty in walking as a result of progressive weakness of both his lower limbs. As the problem worsened, on 20.11.1995, the appellant approached Regency Hospital Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), for Medical check-up. On the same day, C.T. Scan was done and he was diagnosed as a patient of 'Dorsol Cord Compression D4-D6 Pott's spine' which in simple terms means that T.B. infection has spread till his vertebra. On the same day he was advised to get operated for decompression of spinal cord by Laminectomy D-3 to D-6. The operation was performed by Dr. Atul Sahay (Respondent No. 2) on 25.11.1995. It is asserted, that, after the operation, the condition of the appellant deteriorated further and it was revealed from the MRI scan that the operation was not successful as it was not done at the right level. It is also stated that the case summary and the MRI reports suggest that the problem was aggravated and there was need for another operation. Dr. I.N.Vajpayee (respondent No. 3) was consulted on 12.12.1995 and he performed the operation on the same day. Even after the second operation the infection was not cured and this forced him to refer his case to Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Sciences, New Delhi (VIMHANS) for further treatment. It is further stated, that, the third operation was preformed and it provided the appellant some relief, but left him handicapped due to his legs being rendered useless and loss of control over his Bladder movement.
3. COMPLAINT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION: The appellant, being impaired by the treatment, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as 'National Commission') alleging medical negligence on the part of respondents 1 to 3. The claim of the appellant before the National Commission was as under:
i) That the correct method of operating his infection was the Antero-Lateral Decompression (ALD) and not Laminectomy.
ii) That the complainant/appellant contends that he was kept only for one week on the Anti-Tubercular drugs before the surgery which is a much shorter duration than the accepted medical practice.
iii) That there was no requirement of immediate surgery.
iv) That the respondent No. 2, who was a Neurosurgeon did not consult the Orthopedic surgeon, even though he was not capable to handle the case of complainant/appellant without consulting Orthopedic surgeon.
Hence, it was claimed that there is gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents in treating the complainant/appellant, and therefore, respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant.
4. NATIONAL COMMISSION