Patient VS Hospitals, Punjab State CommissionEvidence on record ignored by DF, order challenged in state commission, and case dismissed in favour.
Facts & Proceedings of the case:- Complainant, a 23 years old girl, having good look and good figure, was interested in the modelling business. But she was not having a healthy breast, which was very much required for modelling business. She consulted appellant hospital to get her breast size gained/increased by implanting Silicone Gel through operation. A cosmetic doctor of Panchkula was hired for performing the surgery. Complainant alleged that after surgery there was no change in the size of the breast and demanded Rs.2 lacs as compensation. DF pointed out that the doctors had not noted the actual dimensions of the breast before implants, therefore, no findings could be recorded what was actual increase in the size of the breast and as such, patient was awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
Being aggrieved by the order, an appeal was filed before state commission, where the case was argued by a well experienced advocate Sahil Khunger of AICL that DF has ignored the opinion of the Doctors in the field from the PGI. Also, photographs were not considered in which the position before the operation and after the operation has been clearly shown, proving that there was considerable gain in the size of the breast of the complainant. Outcome: State Commission opined that it was also the duty of patient to put on record some evidence of her breast size before and after the operation. Complainant failed to prove that there was no change in the size of the breast after the operation. Hence state commission dismissed the order passed by DF in favour of AICL members.