Khar resident Ajay Khanna, 71, had to wait for 16 long years to bring to book the surgeon who was responsible for his wife’s death during a liposuction operation.
Khar resident Ajay Khanna, 71, had to wait for 16 long years to bring to book the surgeon who was responsible for his wife’s death during a liposuction operation. But the ordeal is not over for him. Although the verdict was given eight months ago, the retired freelance consultant for oil drilling rigs is yet to get the written order.
“The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Council pronounced the order in my favour in November 2010, but the compensation of Rs7.5 lakh at 9% interest rate that was granted by the forum is meaningless until I have the written order. The process is being delayed for reasons beyond my understanding,” said Khanna.
On May 20, 1994, Dr Amarish Kapasi was conducting a liposuction operation on Khanna’s wife, Sheila, at Jewel Nursing Home in Juhu when she slipped into coma. She was promptly transferred to nearby Arogyanidhi Hospital because the nursing home did not have the required facilities. However, she was declared brought brain dead in Arogyanidhi. She died the next day.
In January 1995, the Juhu police arrested Kapsi after a case of death due to negligence was filed against him. But Kapasi who blamed the anaesthetist for the patient’s death, secured bail and shifted to the US.
While Kapasi’s family was present in the consumer court when the judgement was pronounced in November 2010, Khanna has not yet heard from the doctor and is waiting to intimate him formally on getting a copy of the order.
Kapasi is currently practising physical medicine and rehabilitation at Snehville, Georgia. The health grades website claims to have found no malpractice history against Kapasi in the past five years.
In 1998, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Council gave a stay to Kapasi, but Khanna took the fight to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Council and got the stay revoked. The matter was then again heard by the the state council in 2002. This time, the state commission found the doctor guilty of death due to negligence and directed him to pay Khanna Rs7.5 lakh as compensation.
While the order pronounced by the state council has failed to bring much relief to Khanna, the criminal case against Dr Kapasi is still on at a metropolitan magistrate’s court.
“I had filed a writ petition in the high court against the delay in the lower court because the doctor never turned up for the hearings. In August 2010, the high court directed the lower court and the police to issue summons to Dr Kapasi in the US. But no action has been taken till date despite the high court order,” claimed Khanna.
Act allows only 90 days to settle cases
According to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, various forums are bound to settle consumer disputes in a maximum of 90 days. For the District Forum, the Act states that “every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months if it requires analysis or testing of commodities.”
The guidelines are same for the state as well national commissions. The Act reads that “an appeal filed before the State Commission or the National Commission shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to finally dispose of the appeal within a period of ninety days from the date of its admission.”
However, a consumer activist said: “There are several writ petitions pending in the high court regarding the delays in consumer forums. However, this debate seems to be taking as long to conclude as the cases pending in the forums.”
The terms and conditions for the main culprits of delays in orders, adjournments, are also elaborately illustrated in the Act: “Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by any of the three forums, unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by such commission. In the event of an appeal being disposed of after the period so specified, the respective commission shall record in writing the reasons for the same at the time of disposing of the said appeal.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}