ORDER
J.K. Mehra, Member
1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, vide which order of the State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum. Though it is not necessary to reproduce the facts in detail at this revisional stage, but to dispose of the revision petition, we feel it appropriate to discuss the facts in brief, which are as under :
2. The complainant’s mother, Smt. Shantidevi Ojha, was suffering from abdominal ‘pain and was taken to the opposite party Hospital, where Dr. Ashokha Ladha, opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum, diagnosed that she was a patient of Gall Stones & Chronic Cholecystitis. Operation was performed on 2.5.1995. On 8.5.1995, stitches were removed. On the same day, when the patient had a bout of cough following which there was abdominal burst and the abdominal pain which was repaired on the same day by Dr. Ladha. On 9.5.1995, the patient complained of chest pain. She died on 23.5.1995, in spite of efforts by Dr. Jog, Cardiologist. Complaining deficiency in service the complainant, i.e. the son of the patient, filed a complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- towards expenses, mental pain and sufferings, before the District Forum which awarded Rs. 50,000/- for alleged medical negligence for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties appealed to the State Commission, The State Commission had examined the matter in detail. The State Commission had heard the parties and gone through the evidence and documents produced before the District Forum. It is found from the record produced before us that though both the parties had filed their respective affidavits, but no opinion of medical expert was filed from either side. In this connection the State Commission held as under :
“We have gone through the evidence and documents produced before the District Forum. The complainant has filed his own affidavit and a copy of bed chart recorded by the Doctors of the Hospital. Doctors have filed their own affidavits. There is no opinion of medical expert or any affidavit from either side. From the perusal of the order of the District Forum we find that the District Forum has found that the stitches were removed at the earlier stage and when there was severe bouts of cough the wound got burst and because the patient had remained in burst abdomen condition for a period of 2-3 hours, it led to infection and consequently of cardiac problem and ultimately death.”
3. To come to the correct conclusion as to whether there was any negligence on the part of the Hospital, the State Commission referred to Maingot’s Abdominal Operations by Michaeal J., Zinner Seymour J. Schwarts, Harold Ellis, and on the point, as to when abdominal disruption can occur, the State Commission referrred to the Medical Book Bailey’s & Love’s Short Practice of Surgery, Sixteenth Edition, which reveals that deep sutures should remain in place at least for 14 days and in this particular case, as per the case-sheet, the sutures were removed after the sixth day. In this context the State Commission held as under :
“We, therefore, find that though there was no negligence so far as the operation part is concerned, but there had been lapse on the part of the hospital staff in postoperative care. Though the antibiotics were administered to the patient but when she developed complaint of cough and expectoration then there should have been a special care because this wound caused abdominal disruption. Bailey’s and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery, Sixteenth Edition at page 1056 says that there are more frequent chances of burst in cases of upper abdominal incisions than lower abdominal incisions which we quote :
‘It is interesting and instructive to note that upper abdominal incisions disrupt more frequently than lower abdominal incisions and that the suture material employed appears to have no bearing on the incidence of the disaster.’
In the present case, incision was on the upper side of the abdomen, therefore, chances of abdominal burst were much more and the hospital staff should have taken all care.”
4. In view of the above discussion, the State Commission held that there was negligence on the part of the staff of the hospital and the death was due to negligence of the hospital authorities and affirmed the order of the District Forum.
5. Still feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the opposite parties have come in revision before us. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Shrouti, learned Counsel for the petitioners. We have also gone through the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission. We do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioners herein that the District Forum did not apply its mind and awarded compensation merely on baseless presumtions and conjectures and that the State Commission dismissed the appeal on imaginary ground not available in the record.
6. The other contention of the petitioners before us is that the For a below did not rely on expert opinion in reaching the concurrent finding of negligence on the part of the opposite parties. We find no substance in this contention as on our scrutiny of the order of the State Commission and that of the District Forum, we find that apart from filing the affidavits by both the sides, neither side did make any submission for calling any expert and take the expert opinion. Therefore, State Commission relied upon the text book referred to hereinabove on the basis whereof, in the facts of the case, a case for negligence was made out. Hence the Fora below, relying upon the affidavits of both sides and other material available on record reached the concurrent finding.
7. The matter has been dealt with at two stages in detail and concurrent findings are reached by both the Fora below. We are in complete agreement with the concurrent findings so reached by the State Commission and dismiss the Revision Petition.