Maharashtra

StateCommission

CC/12/159

MR SHANTILAL MEWADA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANAND NURSING HOME - Opp.Party(s)

VINCENT D'SOUZA

17 Jul 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/159
 
1. MR SHANTILAL MEWADA
401 B WING AMAYA APTS SIDDIVINAYAK NAGAR NALLASOPARA WEST THANE 401203
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ANAND NURSING HOME
GODAWARI EAST WING SHANTI -VAN NEXT TO NATIONAL PARK BORIVALI EAST MUMBAI 400066
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Adv. Lancy D' Souza for the Complainant
......for the Complainant
 
ORDER

Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Judicial Member

 

          Heard Adv. Lancy D’ Souza on behalf of the Complainant.

 

[2]     This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service based upon medical negligence shown at Opponent No.1, Anand Nursing Home and the treating doctor, Opponent No.2, Dr. Hitesh Gupta in respect of new born child care who was admitted to the Opponent No.1, Nursing Home.  New born was born prematurely at 34 weeks of pregnancy and, therefore, needed special care.  New born ultimately died on 9/2/2011.  New born child was admitted to the Opponent No.1, Nursing Home during the period 26/11/2011 to 9/2/2011 i.e. till his death.

 

[3]     Grievance of the Complainant rests upon his own assumption and particularly raising a point of informed consent while treating the new born child.  The Complainant is the father of the deceased new born child.

 

[4]     We have carefully considered the material placed on the record.  Nursing Home’s record where the new born child was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit and also the document of informed consent respectively at pages (43) to (46) and (48) of the compilation of the complaint.  There is nothing on the record to show that proper care in treatment of the new born child was not taken and the fortunate death was due to any negligence on the part of staff of the Opponent No.1, Nursing Home or the Opponent No.2, treating Doctor.  As far as informed consent is concerned, the document which is written in vernacular language is signed by the Complainant himself and which shows that he was made aware of the condition of the new born child appropriately and it prima-facie ruled out the grievance of the Complainant that there was no informed consent.  The Complainant failed to show, prima-facie, that there is medical negligence on the part of the Opponents while treating the new born child and thus, the Opponents are guilty of deficiency in service.

 

          For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

 

The complaint is not admitted and stands dismissed in limine.

 

No order as to costs.

 

 

Pronounced on 17th July, 2012

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase]
PRESIDENT
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
Judicial Member
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.