O R D E R (ORAL)
This Revision Petition, by Global Heart & General Hospital; the Treating Doctor and Shivalik Heart & Women Hospital Pvt. Ltd., a unit of Global Heart & General Hospital, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 18.11.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Rajasthan at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in FA/1031/2015. By the impugned order, while affirming the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur Third, Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) by its order dated 3.8.2015 in Complaint No.875/13 (Old No.1156/11), to the effect that there was negligence on the part of the treating Doctor in not correctly correlating the Ultrasound report of the lower abdomen of the Complainant, wherein it was opined that there was Ovarian Cyst (left) and Ectopic Pregnancy could not be ruled out and giving wrong treatment to her, the State Commission has reduced the amount of compensation payable to the Complainant to ₹1,00,000/- as against the compensation of ₹10,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum. Being aggrieved by award of the said paltry sum, the present Revision Petition has been preferred.
Since the afore-noted gist of the controversy before the Fora below is sufficient to appreciate the issue involved in this Revision Petition, we deem it unnecessary to burden the order by narrating the facts, leading to the Complaint, in extenso.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has vehemently submitted that since all the necessary tests and adequate medication was advised to the Complainant, there was no negligence on the part of the Treating doctor. However, on a pointed query as to what further investigations were advised to overrule the Ectopic Pregnancy, as indicated in the Ultrasound report dated 15.4.2010, learned Counsel submits that since in the Urine Pregnancy Test, done on 17.4.2010, the report was negative, the Treating Doctor concluded that the Complainant was not pregnant and treated her accordingly.
Having perused the prescriptions on record, in particular the initial Ultrasound report, we are of the view that in the light of the opinion in the Ultrasound report, which is considered to be much more efficacious diagnostic procedure, a routine Urine Test was not sufficient to overrule Ectopic pregnancy and hence, the Treating Doctor failed to do what she ought to have done to form a firm opinion that the patient was not pregnant. Thus, there was negligence on the part of the Treating Doctor. Therefore, we do not find any material irregularity in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below, which has otherwise not been challenged as being perverse on any ground. Accordingly, we affirm the same. Having held so, we are of the view that the award of a paltry sum of ₹1,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by her, is not excessive by any standards.
Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine accordingly.