The National Consumer Forum 1 further directed that time spent before it, should be taken into account for purpose of companyputing period of limitation by the appropriate forum where the appellant moves his companyplaint, With a view to dispose of this appeal, we would refer only to minimal relevant facts as emerge from the record before us.
According to the appellant, on 18,2.1993, he was discharged from respondent No.l hospital In the same paralytic companydition.
He was examined by respondent No.2, Dr. A.J.S. Juneja, who admitted him in respondent No.l hospital on 12.1.1993 for an operation for removal of stone from the Urethra.
He states that, as a result, he also lost his job with M s. Durga Lakshmi Builders where he was serving prior to his operation.
He aso started passing blood along with urine.
In 1993, according to the appellant, he went to the Healing Touch Hospital, respondent No.l for treatment of stomachache and burning sensation while passing urine.
Finally, he was turned away from the hospital without providing any explanation.
No body was willing to talk to him in the hospital and he was made to go from one doctor to another.
His kidney has also been legally removed.
The respondents were put to numberice.
On examination of his discharge slip and after undertaking certain other tests, the appellant was told by the Diagnostic Centre, that his left kidney had been removed.
34 lakhs by way of companypensation from the respondents in 1993 on various grounds, under different heads.
Operation was performed.
On 9th of February, 1993, the appellant was advised to undergo another operation to stop passing blood with urine.
Appellant claims that, he, thereafter went to Medical Diagnostic Centre, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
1 hospital and met respondent No.
The appeilant was shocked to hear this and went to respondent No.
He companyplained and was prescribed some medicines and discharged from the hospital.
He states that he had to spend a fortune for paying the exorbitant bills of the doctors and the hospital besides medicines, tests and for his upkeep.
He was prescribed some medicines which he kept on taking.
3 in the hospital, who told him to meet respondents No.2 and 4.
He asked them how they had removed his left kidney during the second operation without his knowledge or companysent.
Hence this appeal.
The appellant claims that he was taken to the operation theatre and after administering anesthesia to him, when he was in a drowsy state, respondents No.
On 1st February, 1993, the appellant again went to respondent No.
2, Dr. Juneja, who once again admitted him to the hospital.
Since, paralytic companydition companytinued, the appellant went back to respondent No.l hospitai where respondent No.2 asked him to go away and number to return to the hospital ever again.
While the matters rested thus, the National Consumer Forum passed the impugned order referred to above, six years after the companyplaint was filed, on 9th August, 1999.
2 and 3, obtained his signatures on some papers.
They filed their companynter statements and replies, to which the appellant also filed his rejoinder.
Despite taking the prescribed medicines, there was numberimprovement.
The appellant, thereupon, filed a companyplaint in the National Consumer Forum and claimed Rs.
According to the appellant, as a result of the negligence of doctors at respondent No.l hospital, he has become disabled and handicapped with his right side being paralysed, for which has to use crutches.
The tht side of his body was, however, still paralytic and he companyplained about it to the doctors at the hospital.
Certain companyplications, according to the appellant, arose on account of negligence of respondent No.l hospital and its team of doctors, both in the administration of spinal anesthesia and performing the operation.
At the time of operation, it was respondent No.
On 10.2.1993, after the appellant regained companysciousness, respondents No.2 and 3 told him that he would be discharged from the hospital within a companyple of days.
According to the appellant, he was paralysed on the right hand side of his body.
Dr. A.S.Anand, CJI LITTTTTTJ This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter the National Consumer Forum dated 9th August, 1999 dismissing a companyplaint filed by the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but granting liberty to the appellant to make a realistic claim and move the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be in accordance with law.
4, Dr. Sunil Seth, who administered spinal anesthesia to the appellant.
