JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.

Troubles and problems continued to adhere to me in my life. I came to know that life is not bed of roses but full of challenges. My mother a retired teacher had to take up tuition's to the nearby students as the pension she received was insufficient to meet the medical, travelling and consultation expenses of various doctors at the hospital. We were together burdened with the litigation expenses.

I did not get justice at the first level. So my pursuit for justice continued.  

In 2015-16 a two bladder stones of 5.5cms. and 3.5cms., was detected in the urinary bladder due to the incomplete operation and long term retention of Supra Pubic catheter. The bladder stone is grown to such a huge size means it has been growing inside since a long time but started to give problems and pain when it had grown to that size. In May 2016, the bladder stone was removed by open surgery with great difficulty, as Cystolithotripsy could not be done as it would cause damaged to the augmented bladder. (It is clear by doctor’s opinion given in writing.)

Based on the above facts and with the doctors written opinion which was not available in the earlier complaint, I have filed a fresh complaint in NCDRC under the discovery of new fact and fresh and continues cause of action vide complaint No. CC-1336-2016 on 17^th August 2016, making the Anesthetist Dr. Supriya Gajendragadkar as OP No.1, Dr. Santosh J. Karmarkar as OP No.2 and Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children as OP NO.3 as Dr. Supriya Gajendragadkar’s illegalities and misconduct and her negligence in giving anesthesia has come to light now because Dr.Santosh J. Karmarkar had suppressed all the illegalities in the earlier proceedings all these years.

Relying upon Supreme Court’s Judgment in Anita Sena Fernandis vs Dr. V.N.Shrikhande I have filed this present complaint in NCDRC. I am complainant in person representing my own case in court. Even as per the Supreme Court’s judgment as held in OM PRAKASH SINGH VS STATE OF BIHAR that second complaint can be filed when there is a fresh cause of action and discovery of new facts. Even in Indian Machinery Company vs M/S Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that under Consumer Protection Act 1986, second complaint can be filed when there is discovery of new facts.

My case got admitted and the notice had been issued to all the OP’s as the case was not falling under res-judicata which was decided by the judges after going through the 8 volumes of earlier proceedings submitted in the court, as per the judges daily order of 1^st December, 2016.

All Papers exchanges and interrogatory submission in the court was over between all the OP’s and the complainant and now the court had passed the order to prove the maintainability of the second complaint in NCDRC on 6^th September,2018 and compelled the complainant to engage a lawyer and did not provide any AMICUS in spite of my request.

I had filed 12 Interim Applications which was not taken up for hearing deliberately to suppress the facts by the judges in the last two years time.

I had filed an Expert Anesthetist opinion on affidavit which was also not taken into consideration while giving the judgment because in the full judgment there is no mention of the opinion given by the expert which I had filed.

On 18 February 2019, the maintainability argument was held, only legal aspects were argued in the court, but the medical aspects like incomplete operation done by Dr. Santosh J. Karmarkar and complications that arouse after the incomplete operation, loss of sensation due to spinal analgesia done by Dr. Supriya Gajendragadkar (Team Leader), the Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for children not having proper equipment’s for treating adults were not taken in the argument for which this case is particularly filed the second time.

As per the rules a judicial member should be present in the bench at the time of arguments, but in my particular case the final argument was held without a judicial member.

Throughout the judgment the judges have taken the matter of maintainability, but at actual in the court the medical negligence issue was not at all taken up for argument, when I raised the medical negligence issue, the judges said that once the maintainability issue is  decided later the medical negligence issue would be taken up, but the judges have dismissed the case after listening to maintainability issue only, but while giving the judgment they have taken the medical negligence issue also and stated that there is no medical negligence on the part of doctors without giving a chance to the complainant for counter arguments on medical negligence. Even the medical literatures and the specialist doctors opinion was not taken into consideration by the judges. The judges have stated in the judgment that there is no medical negligence on the part of the doctors. Hence I feel that there is a great nexus between the judiciary and the doctors. The patients and their grievances are not at all taken into account while giving the judgment.

I am a computer hardware and software engineer and not able to go for employment and earn my livelihood. I am depending on my mother’s pension who is a retired teacher. With  great difficulty we are trying to manage daily expenses, the medical treatment for my present condition and the legal expenses.

I appeal to the people, the Visual Media, the Press, the Minister of Law and Minister of Health of Central and State Government to intervene in this matter and help me to get justice.