LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II

LAW OF TORTS INTERNAL-II

DRAFTING A CONSUMER COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Name – Pranita Prakash Midigeshi

Course – BBA LLB(hons.)
Division – C
PRN – 23010126242

1
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BENGALURU

IN THE MATTER OF,

SAMAIRA SHETTY
32, SOFTWARE DEVELOPER
SFS 208,12TH MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, 560064.

…………………………....... COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

ST PHILOMENA’S HOSPITAL
POST 4, MOTHER TERESA RD
VIVEKA NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, 560047.

...…………………………OPPOSITE PARTY
Consumer complaint No. 42/2024
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019

2
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II
The complaint most respectfully states as under

INTRODUCTION
1. I, Samaira Shetty, 32, am a software developer from SFS 208, Yelahanka
Newtown, Bengaluru. I work at ‘Infosys limited’ located in plot no. 44,
Hosur Rd, Konappana Agrahara, electronic city, Bengaluru.

2. The opposite party is St Philomena’s hospital, located in post 4, Mother

Teresa Rd viveka nagar, Bengaluru, 560047.

CAUSE OF ACTION
1. I, Samaira shetty, suffered difficulty in conceiving so I sought diagnosis
from the gynaecologist at St Philomena’s hospital. After ultrasound of
abdomen and pelvis, I was diagnosed with fibroids on the uterine wall. I was
charged Rs. 5,245 for the tests and consultation with the doctor. The
payment for the same was done on 26th January, 2024. Later I was informed
that the difficulty in conceiving was due to the presence of this non-
cancerous growth on my uterine walls. Upon understanding that their
removal could enhance my chances of conception, I consented to undergo
myomectomy procedure for fibroid removal.

2. The surgery was scheduled for February 3rd, 2024. Prior to the procedure, I
was required to make advance payments for both the surgery and
medication. Additionally, I was admitted the hospital two days in advance.
The total amounted to Rs. 4, 64,726, which was paid in full on 1st February,
2024.

3
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II
3. During the surgery, due to severe complications, I incurred heavy blood loss
and rupture. This prompted the operating surgeon to perform a hysterectomy
without obtaining the consent of me or my immediate relatives. As a
consequence of this procedure, I suffered removal of my uterus and some
serious disabilities. I was not informed of the potential risks associated with
the surgery, including the possibility of removal of the uterus in the event of
complications, prior to undergoing the procedure. This lack of disclosure
deprived me of the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding my
treatment options.

4. After requesting my medical records, I promptly discharged myself and

transferred to Sparsh general hospital. It was there that I was informed that
the surgical complications stemmed from the failure to thoroughly assess the
size of the fibroid before the surgical procedure. The doctor’s decision to
take unwarranted risks without conducting a proper analysis of my condition
highlighted the egregious negligence in my medical care. This oversight has
left me with severe repercussions, leaving me unable to bear children and
burdened with long term disabilities.

5. Being extremely aggrieved and my consumer rights being violated, I

approached this forum to effectively redress the injustice done to me due to
medical negligence under section 2(11)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019.

4
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II

TRANSACTION
1. The medical serviced rendered inclusive of the medicines and consultation
provided totally amounted to “Rs 4,69,971”.
2. The invoice number for the payment for the hospital services dated 1st
February, 2024 was “20230762-541”.
3. A payment of Rs 5,245 was made through cash and the payment of
Rs.4,64,726 via an Account Payee Cheque.
Cheque Number: “042982” MICR Code: “700002171”.
Account Number: “17129300845” Transaction ID: “29”.
IFSC Code: “SBIN0007325”.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

That the action of the opposite party, M/s St Philomena’s hospital, amounts to:
1. Deficiency in services: the medical staff failed to exercise reasonable care
expected of prudent professionals. There was negligence in the proper
examination of the fibroid to assess its size and extension into the uterine
cavity, posing complications for the surgical procedure. The omission of
proper analysis of the medical condition prior the surgery resulted in injury
to the consumer.
2. Harassment, mental agony, and financial loss: the non-consensual
hysterectomy compounded the mental anguish experienced by the
complainant, as the primary intent for undergoing the procedure to remove
her fibroids was to enhance her prospects of conception. Further, the surgery
and its ensuing complications have resulted her completely incapable of
conception.
5
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II
3. Lack of informed consent: the complainant was not adequately informed of
the potential risks associated with the surgical procedure. Specifically, she
was not made aware of the possibility of uterine removal in the event of
complications. Furthermore, even after complications arose, proper consent
from her immediate kin was not sought during the subsequent removal
process.

DEFENSE

The actions of the opposite party M/s St Philomena’s hospital, constitutes

deficiency in services, harm in relation to product liability, injury caused to the
complainant and violation of consumer rights as defined under the provisions of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
 The complainant is a consumer under section 2(7)(ii).
 The act of medical negligence is included within the ambit of CPA, 2019
under section 2(42).
The complainant’s consumer rights have been violated as per the following
provisions:
 Section 2(11)(i): deficiency in services – an act of negligence or omission or
commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.
 Section 2(22)(ii): personal injury, illness or death.
 Section 2(22)(iii):mental agony or emotional distress attendant to personal
injury or illness or damage to the property .
 Section 23: injury caused to any person, in body, mind or property.

6
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II

Additionally,
 Informed consent of the complainant was necessary prior to surgery or any
other invasive procedure as established in ‘Kohli v Prabha Machanda’. The
opposite party failed to comply with the same.
That the complainants have no efficacious and effective remedy except to approach
this Hon’able Commission, hence the present complaint

JURISDICTION

1. The total amount involved is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the complaint is being
filed with the Hon’able District Consumer Disputes Redressal commission
as per the revised pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 3 of “The Consumer
Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission
and the National Commission) Rules, 2021” under Sections 34(1) and
101(o) of the CPA, 2019.
2. Both parties are situated in Bengaluru therefore, the cause of action
wholly arises in the said district, the complaint is being filed with the
Hon’ble Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Cauvery Bhavan BWSSB Wing, KG. Road, Bengaluru,
560009 as per the territorial jurisdiction under Section 34(2) of the
CPA, 2019.
3. That the complaint can be filed with the Hon’ble District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission as per Section 35(1)(a) of the CPA, 2019 as
the complainant is the “consumer” as the service was provided in the form
of medical treatment.

7
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II
PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS

The complaint is being filed within the period of Limitation of two years from the cause of
action as the cause of action arose on 3rd February 2024, and the complaint is being filed on 19th
March 2024, which accounts for only 45 days. Hence, the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission shall admit the complaint as per Section 69(1) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019.

PRAYER

The complainant therefore prays for the following reliefs:-

i) A refund of Rs. Rs 4,69,971 that was paid to the opposite party by way of
consideration for surgical procedure and tests.
ii) Damages worth Rs. 2, 00,000 for the physical injury and surgical
complications.
iii) Adequate damages for mental agony inflicted on the complainant due to
non-consensual removal of the uterus
iv)The Cost of this proceeding to be paid by the opposite party to the
complainant.
v) That such orders be passed as the Hon’able Consumer Forum deems fit.

PLACE : SFS 208, Newtown, Bengaluru, Karnataka

DATED : 19th March, 2024

Signature
SAMAIRA SHETTY

8
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II
VERIFICATION

I, Samaira Shetty, resident of SFS 208, Newtown, Bengaluru, Karnataka ,

hereby declare that I have not misrepresented any facts nor have tried to hide
any information in my above complaint. All the facts mentioned herein are
true to the best of my knowledge.

SAMAIRA SHETTY

Name & signature of the complainant

Please note: The affidavit should be notarized before further copies of complaint
set are made for submission.

9
 LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II
Arrangement of the complaint papers:
All papers to be kept in paper file in the following order:
1. Complaint
2. Affidavit
3. Invoice of Transaction
4. Printouts of Bank Transaction
5. Other Documents
6. Vakalatnama

Page numbers to be written on lower right corner.

Deposit the complaint file at the consumer court along with appropriate court fee.

10
LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II
EVIDENCE ATTACHED BELLOW

11
LAW OF TORTS – INTERNAL II

12