Scope Of Revision Petition U/s 21(b) Of Consumer Protection Act Is Limited : NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice S.M. Kantikar as the presiding member observed that the scope of revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited while hearing a batch of revision petitions against the order of the state forum to enhance compensation for negligent treatment.

In the case at hand, the Complainant’s son was examined by Dr. J.S. Sidhu and made provisional diagnosis of Acute Viral Hepatitis. Accordingly, conservative treatment was started for Hepatitis and for 2nd opinion the Gastroenterologist Dr. Harpreet Singh, examined the patient.

Later, the patient developed symptoms of irritability, which was a sign of hepatic encephalopathy led to fulminant hepatic failure and was shifted to Fortis Escorts Hospital. It was alleged that the Dr Sidhu administered more medicines and failed to diagnose renal failure. The patient remained in the hospital and died after 39 days. Being aggrieved by the negligent treatment of OPs, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

The opposite parties submitted that the patient was treated with due care and diligence. He was treated with consultation of an expert Dr. Harpreet Singh. The vitals of the patient were monitored consistently on every 2 hours. When the patient showed irritability, it was sign of hepatic encephalopathy, it was advised to shift the patient to the higher centre as he would require facilities for ventilator support, dialysis and even liver transplant. However, initially the Complainant was reluctant to shift the patient owing to the high costs involved. 

The District Forum on appraisal of evidence partly allowed the Complaint and directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs (Rs.Ten lacs) i.c. Rs.5 lacs each in equal share, to the complainant as compensation. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 

Being aggrieved the opposite parties and the complainant filed Appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeals filed by the OPs, and allowed the Appeal filed by Complainant. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 17,27,036/- to be paid by the OPs. Resultantly, the current batch of revision petitions were filed before the national commission.

It was observed by the bench that as admitted by Dr. Sandhu diagnosed it was a case of acute fulminant hepatitis. The Gastroenterologist Dr. H. P. Singh, DM visited the hospital on 3 rd and 4 th July, 2011 and the the test report HAV Positive and HBE were Negative. Therefore, Dr. H. P. Singh recommended no treatment. 

The bench further noted that It is pertinent to note that the he did not consult Nephrologist and kidney function tests were not advised to rule out acute renal injury. It is also not evident that the ICU was functioning, and the patient was shifted to Fortis Hospital. The investigations done there revealed deranged liver function test (LFT) and LDH, prothrombin time, INR were high. Therefore, diagnosis was made as Hepatitis A, Hepatic-encephalopathy and acute renal failure. 

The national commission observed that the consent form was printed and unsigned. 

Relying on the SC cases ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  and ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr’ the bench held that the scope of Revision Petition is limited.  The bench didn’t find any jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice in the decisions of district and state forums.

Case: Dr. J.S.Sidhu v. Ashok Bhandari & 3 O