Consumer Fora Possesses Discretionary Powers To Award Compensation: Delhi State Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant(deceased), an 82-year-old retired teacher, following an enlarged prostate diagnosis, underwent a TRUP procedure by the doctor at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. The complainant argued that despite ongoing pain and burning sensations post-operation, the doctor assured it would subside. However, complications persisted, leading to emergency visits and subsequent admissions at other hospitals. Subsequently, the tests revealed kidney issues and the presence of a stone not removed as recommended. Additional surgeries followed, but the stone was still present, resulting in kidney failure and its eventual removal. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking Rs. 32 lakhs in compensation for medical damages, pain, suffering, and related expenses, alleging gross negligence and collusion between the doctor and the hospital. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the doctor to pay Rs. One lakh compensation to the complainant for negligence committed by him towards the operation of removal of stone of the complainant along with Rs. 5000 as cost of litigation. However, the Forum found the hospital not liable for negligence. Aggrieved by the District Forum's order, the complainant appealed before the State Commission to enhance compensation.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The doctor filed a cross-appeal denying all claims of the complainant and argued that the District Commission misjudged the alleged service deficiency. Additionally, the hospital replied to the appeal, refuting all accusations made by the complainant. It asserted that the District Forum's order was based on a thorough scrutiny of all available records and defended its actions accordingly.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission referred to the Supreme Court case titled Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 668, which underscored the discretionary power of Consumer Forums in awarding compensation to serve justice and foster improved service standards. The Commission noted that the primary objective of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is to safeguard consumers from unfair practices by service providers. Upon review of the case, the Commission affirmed the District Commission's finding of negligence on the doctor's part, specifically in the removal of a stone rather than causing damage to the complainant's kidney. Consequently, the Commission upheld the compensation awarded by the District Commission, seeing no grounds to overturn their decision.

The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Commission's order.

Case Title: Mr. Madan Lal Vashist Vs. Mr. Ajit Saxena

Case Number: F.A. No. 486/2012