Mrs. Navpreet Kaur complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite parties be directed to make the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, physical agony and harassment and also on account of her treatment including litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, also to pay compensation for Rs.50,000/- for the mental harassment, agony, inconvenience, insult and also to pay Rs.10,000/-for litigation expenses which she has incurred and other relief which she is legally entitled.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2011 and after four years she had conceived with the grace of God. As and when she got pregnant, she got started her regular check up from the opposite party no.1 where the opposite party no.2 was serving and performing her duty as Gynecologist and she used to regular checkup and gave medicine to her required in the pregnancy from said hospital and all records pertaining to her medical treatment are in the possession of the opposite parties. Even the opposite parties have also got done her two ultra sounds which are also in the custody of the opposite parties which was conducted from Modern Ultrasound Scan. Suddenly on 23.2.2015 she was feeling some weakness and her husband took her to the opposite party no.1 where the opposite parties no.2 and 3 allured to her and her husband that there is need of her admission in the hospital since she is feeling weakness due to anemia. As per the advice of the opposite party no.2 she was admitted in the hospital as indoor patient from 24.2.2015 where three units of blood were transfused to her and on 26.2.2015, she told to her husband that now she is feeling better but the opposite party no.2 told her husband that they will discharge her after completing some other Tests for avoiding any future complication and they did her ultrasound and some blood test in the same hospital. They called her husband and told that child who is in her womb having aged 8 months approximately and he/she has died in the womb and they have to undergo for operation of abortion of the said child from the womb with immediate effect. They demanded consent memo from her husband for operation and in order to save her life her husband gave the consent and deposited Rs.5,000/- as partial payment of operation charges. In the meanwhile one of her relative telephonically suggested to contact some other doctors accordingly her husband contacted the opposite parties and requested them either to allow him to get conducted an ultrasound from outside the hospital premises or to get conducted ultrasound from outside the hospital premises by the opposite parties itself only to make confirmation of the said earlier report of ultrasound being done in the hospital premises but the opposite parties become annoyed and they refused to get her ultra sound. Then they left the hospital premises and conducted her ultrasound on the same day and same time from Bajwa Scanners and X-Ray, Magrala Road, Dinanagar and concerned doctor Sh.Gagandeep Bajwa, DGO, PCMS-1 (Ex.) Gold Medalist) of said scan centre given a report under his signature on the same day. In oral way, said doctor has told to her and her husband that the child in the womb is well being and he/she is alive and there is no problem of any kind to the child in the womb. Thereafter she alongwith her husband went to Sanjivani Hospital, Jalandhar City, the concerned doctor of the said hospital assured them that the child in the womb is quite well. As the child in the womb was quite well and there was no any kind of problem as such she has delivered a female child on 27.03.2015 vaginally/natural way at Sanjivani Hospital, Jalandhar city. She has further pleaded that she has been saved with the grace of God from the hands of the opposite parties who are greedy persons and they in order to grab and digest the money from her husband has prepared false ultrasound report and was playing with emotions of her and was also doing an illegal act of abortion of a child, who was well being and was in the position to see the world in just near future. These illegal acts of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and are deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties who appeared and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the present second complaint is false, frivolous and is not maintainable and the same has been filed just to harass the opposite parties and compensatory cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/- be imposed upon the complainant for filing false complaint and for harassing the opposite parties. On merits, it was submitted that Dr.Amandeep Kaur Chauhan is a Gynecologist at Chauhan Hospital, Dinanagar and she is also Managing Director and Proprietor of the Hospital. The opposite party no.2 is a Medical Officer of the Hospital. It was further submitted that as per the record submitted by the complainant the ultra-sono grapy of the complainant was referred by Dr.R.Kaler (M.D.) of Gurdaspur and was conducted at Modern Ultra Sound Scan Centre, Improvement Trust Colony, Batala Road, Gurdaspur by Dr.Mamta Rani (M.D.Radio Diagnosis) on 15.02.2015. Actually the complainant was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party on 24.2.2015, at that time the complainant was suffering from severe anemia, generalized weakness, swelling on both legs and loss of appetite. As her HB (Hemoglobin) contents was very lesser. 3 units of blood were transfused to the complainant. Best treatment was given to the complainant and the fetus as anemia is the major cause of death of the mother and child during the pregnancy. The complainant should be thankful to the opposite parties for saving her life and life of the child in the womb but the complainant is thankless lady and she filed the present false complaint against the opposite parties with ulterior motive. It was next submitted that on 26.2.2015 the opposite party Dr.Amandeep Kaur Chauhan (Gynecologist) advised the complainant and her husband for ultra Sonography (U.SG.) for fetal well being, urine check and to monitor vitals and fetal heart rate. USG for the fetal well being was conducted by Dr.Sanjeev Soni (M.D.RadioDiagnosis) at the Hospital of the opposite party on 26.2.2015. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.
4. Counsel for the ccomplainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-2, alongwith other documents Ex.C1, Ex.C3 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Amandeep Kaur Chauhan Gynecologist Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have intently examined the documents/evidence as produced on the records of the instant proceedings for the legal statutory merit in the back-drop of the allegations/rebuttals, averments and arguments as duly put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants but to finally/conclusively observe that the complainant has somehow failed to produce any direct cogent evidence or even otherwise any collateral evidentiary link-document supporting her prime allegation of having been falsely intimidated by the titled opposite parties with the false intimation of her non-alive fetus (foetus) and need for its urgent medical termination to save the mother complainant’s life. We also find that the opposite party Hospital (along with the titled doctors) has ignored to produce some of the vital evidentiary documents to clarify the intertwine and that of course lands them into the sphere of ‘suspicion’ but that alone shall not line them up to an adverse statutory award. We are strengthened in our above introductory but well-considered opinion through the executed legal-analysis as hereunder:
1. The allegations as made out in the instant complaint as well as in first complaint # 274/2015 are supported by the complainant’s affidavit Ex.C2 deposing therein in totality the contents of the complaint and the other accompanying documents exhibited here as: Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 to Ex.C16 in original with CC # 274/2015 and its copies as produced herewith; Comments: Mere deposition sans support of cogent evidence does not hold statutory merit requisite for an adverse award;
2. Ex.C1 is the USG (ultrasound-graphics) Report of the complainant’s fetus as on 26.02.2015 confirming the then average (not-good)/ alive status but with no serious anomaly having detected as also duly confirmed by reporting Sonologist Dr. Bajwa before the forum on 27.10.2016; Comments: It does not in any way prove the complainant’s allegation being no more than a simple report;
3. Ex.C3/C4 is again the USG Report of the complainant’s fetus as on 26.02.2016 (with tampered-date through overwriting) issued by the OP1 Hospital duly confirming the then deteriorating (but alive) status of the fetus; Comments: It does indicate/hint at some probable malice on the OP’s part but that alone shall not hold them guilty of statutory misconduct;
4. Ex.C7/ C16 Child’s Birth Certificate by the Jalandhar Hospital and M.C. Jalandhar; Comments: Does not prove anything in isolation to the exclusion of any cogent evidence to support the prime allegation of medical advice to terminate fetus;
5. Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 are the complainant’s clinical reports during her admission at the OP Hospital from 24.02.2016 to 26.02.2016; Comments: Are not at all indicative of any advice/ instruction etc to conduct medical termination of fetus;
6. Ex.C12/ C13 is again the USG Report of the complainant’s fetus as on 15.02.2016 issued by one US Scan Centre at Gurdaspur duly confirming the then averagely good (alive) status of the fetus; Comments: Not even found to be relevant in any way to the allegations under the instant adjudication;
7. Ex.C14/C15 and Ex.C16 are the copies of the medical treatment subjected upon the complainant at the OP Hospital (including Blood Transfusion etc); Comments: The herein subjected medical treatment does not indicate hint of any preparation etc in progress towards the allegation of medical termination of fetus;
7. Somehow, we are of the considered opinion that even if the allegations are to some extent somewhat admitted in its presumed probability, we do not find even an indicative feature and/or even some other cogent ‘hint’ on record to put the liability of the alleged infringement of the consumer rights of the complainant upon the titled OP Hospital and the attending doctors. Further, it is understood as has always been per the proceedings records that the onus of proof never shifted to the titled opposite parties and thus they shall not be statutorily held guilty of misconduct even if their sole deposition by way of the lone affidavit Ex.OP1 leaves much to be said and done (explained). Moreover, as per the records the complainant got her USG on 26.02.2015, itself proving that the OP1 Hospital/Doctors did not force the complainant not to go in for the conduct of ‘ultrasound graphics’ in her 8th month of ‘pregnancy’. No hospital records of subsequent medical treatment were summoned or the attending doctor was produced/summoned as witness to prove the allegations of faulty medical treatment etc. Even, the OP doctors were not subjected to cross-examination to determine the falsity of their rebuttal. The depositions in the absence of supporting evidence amount to nothing more than ‘bald’ statements and do not qualify for any favorable statutory awards.
8. In the light of the all above, we do not see any merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
December 27,2016. Member
*MK*
