Page 2 - Learnwell EVS
P. 2
p://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 25
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1949 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Samira Kohli
RESPONDENT:
Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/01/2008
BENCH:
B. N. Agarwal, P. P. Naolekar & R. V. Raveendran
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
RAVEENDRAN, J.
This appeal is filed against the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short
’Commission’) rejecting the appellant\022s complaint (O.P. No.12/1996)
under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (\021Act\022 for short).
Undisputed facts
2. On 9.5.1995, the appellant, an unmarried woman aged 44 years,
visited the clinic of the first respondent (for short \021the respondent\022)
complaining of prolonged menstrual bleeding for nine days. The
respondent examined and advised her to undergo an ultrasound test on the
same day. After examining the report, the respondent had a discussion
with appellant and advised her to come on the next day (10.5.1995) for a
laparoscopy test under general anesthesia, for making an affirmative
diagnosis.
3. Accordingly, on 10.5.1995, the appellant went to the respondent’s
clinic with her mother. On admission, the appellant’s signatures were
taken on (i) admission and discharge card; (ii) consent form for hospital
admission and medical treatment; and (iii) consent form for surgery. The
Admission Card showed that admission was \023for diagnostic and operative
laparoscopy on 10.5.1995". The consent form for surgery filled by Dr.
Lata Rangan (respondent’s assistant) described the procedure to be
undergone by the appellant as "diagnostic and operative laparoscopy.
Laparotomy may be needed". Thereafter, appellant was put under general
anesthesia and subjected to a laparoscopic examination. When the
appellant was still unconscious, Dr. Lata Rengen, who was assisting the
respondent, came out of the Operation Theatre and took the consent of
appellant\022s mother, who was waiting outside, for performing
hysterectomy under general anesthesia. Thereafter, the Respondent
performed a abdominal hystecrectomy (removal of uterus) and bilateral
salpingo-oopherectomy (removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes). The
appellant left the respondent\022s clinic on 15.5.1995 without settling the
bill.
4. On 23.5.1995, the respondent lodged a complaint with the Police
alleging that on 15.5.1995, the Appellant’s friend (Commander Zutshi)
had abused and threatened her (respondent) and that against medical
advice, he got the appellant discharged without clearing the bill. The
appellant also lodged a complaint against the respondent on 31.5.1995,
alleging negligence and unauthorized removal of her reproductive organs.
The first respondent issued a legal notice dated 5.6.1995 demanding
Rs.39,325/- for professional services. The appellant sent a reply dated
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1949 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Samira Kohli
RESPONDENT:
Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/01/2008
BENCH:
B. N. Agarwal, P. P. Naolekar & R. V. Raveendran
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
RAVEENDRAN, J.
This appeal is filed against the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short
’Commission’) rejecting the appellant\022s complaint (O.P. No.12/1996)
under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (\021Act\022 for short).
Undisputed facts
2. On 9.5.1995, the appellant, an unmarried woman aged 44 years,
visited the clinic of the first respondent (for short \021the respondent\022)
complaining of prolonged menstrual bleeding for nine days. The
respondent examined and advised her to undergo an ultrasound test on the
same day. After examining the report, the respondent had a discussion
with appellant and advised her to come on the next day (10.5.1995) for a
laparoscopy test under general anesthesia, for making an affirmative
diagnosis.
3. Accordingly, on 10.5.1995, the appellant went to the respondent’s
clinic with her mother. On admission, the appellant’s signatures were
taken on (i) admission and discharge card; (ii) consent form for hospital
admission and medical treatment; and (iii) consent form for surgery. The
Admission Card showed that admission was \023for diagnostic and operative
laparoscopy on 10.5.1995". The consent form for surgery filled by Dr.
Lata Rangan (respondent’s assistant) described the procedure to be
undergone by the appellant as "diagnostic and operative laparoscopy.
Laparotomy may be needed". Thereafter, appellant was put under general
anesthesia and subjected to a laparoscopic examination. When the
appellant was still unconscious, Dr. Lata Rengen, who was assisting the
respondent, came out of the Operation Theatre and took the consent of
appellant\022s mother, who was waiting outside, for performing
hysterectomy under general anesthesia. Thereafter, the Respondent
performed a abdominal hystecrectomy (removal of uterus) and bilateral
salpingo-oopherectomy (removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes). The
appellant left the respondent\022s clinic on 15.5.1995 without settling the
bill.
4. On 23.5.1995, the respondent lodged a complaint with the Police
alleging that on 15.5.1995, the Appellant’s friend (Commander Zutshi)
had abused and threatened her (respondent) and that against medical
advice, he got the appellant discharged without clearing the bill. The
appellant also lodged a complaint against the respondent on 31.5.1995,
alleging negligence and unauthorized removal of her reproductive organs.
The first respondent issued a legal notice dated 5.6.1995 demanding
Rs.39,325/- for professional services. The appellant sent a reply dated
