Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/48/2018
B.Murali Mohan, s/o Late B.Prabhakara Reddy - Complainant(s)
Versus
Chennai Fertility Center And Research Institute, rep. by its Chairman and Director Dr.V.M. Thomas - Opp.Party(s)
In person
06 Mar 2020
ORDER
Filing Date: 16.07.2018
Order Date:06.03.2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,
CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)
Smt. T.Anitha, Member
FRIDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
C.C.No.48/2018
Between
1. B.Murali Mohan,
S/o. late. B.Prabhakara Reddy,
Hindu, aged 41 years,
Advocate,
Adhar No.738580651540.
Cell No.9177063355.
2. B.Sheela,
W/o. B.Murali Mohan,
Hindu, aged 34 years,
House Wife,
Adhar No.938778765663.
Cell No.9000054715.
Both are residing at:
D.No.8-15/1, S.V.U. Non-Teaching Employees Colony,
Opp. Vidya Nagar,
Tirupati. … Complainants.
And
Chennai Fertility Center and Research Institute,
Rep. by its Chairman and Director - Dr.V.M.Thomas,
D.No. New No.79 / Old No.129, Nelson Manickam Road,
Aminjikarai,
Chennai – 600 029.
Having its Branch in
D.No.18-1-502, Bhavani Nagar,
K.T.Road,
Tirupati. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 13.12.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.R.Govinda Rajulu, counsel for complainants, and Sri.K.Ramanarayana Reddy / Sri.N.Madhusudhan Reddy, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-
ORDER
DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
Complaint filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.4,25,000/- with interest at 24% p.a., to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and costs of the litigation.
2. The complaint averments are as follows:- The 2nd complainant is the wife of 1st complainant and they are issueless. Having been lured by the advertisement of opposite party in news papers and TV channels and camps conducted in Tirupati that 18000+ babies were born with the treatment of opposite party and that they have chain of fertility centers in Chennai, Pondicherry, Tirupati and Bangladesh, the complainants consulted the opposite party on 07.05.2017 by paying Rs.200/- at Tirupati camp for getting child. They were given 100% assurance by Dr.V.M.Thomas, Embryologist, who is the Chairman of opposite party. He advised the complainants to come to fertility centre at Chennai, for necessary investigations, but the complainants remained silent. Later on phone calls were made from opposite party to the complainants repeatedly, asking them to visit opposite party centre at Tirupati, for treatment. The complainants went to opposite party centre on 12.09.2017. Dr. V.M.Thomas, advised them to undergo IVF treatment with donor egg without suggesting any alternative treatment, and as per the advice 2nd complainant underwent several laboratory investigations and hormone tests in Tirupati on 12.09.2017. Semen analysis test of 1st complainant was done on the same day at Crystal Diagnostic Centre, Tirupati, and the report was good. But the opposite party prescribed medicines unnecessarily to the 1st complainant as part of treatment, and on 14.11.2017 he collected Rs.22,000/- from the complainants for conducting hysteroscopy to 2nd complainant at Tirupati, and the same was conducted on 16.11.2017 in opposite party hospital at Chennai, costly injections were given to 2nd complainant, but the report was not given to the complainants. As per the instructions of the opposite party, on 04.12.2017 complainants went to the centre at Tirupati and 2nd complainant was followed by normal scan for the development of eggs and charges were collected from the complainants. The complainants visited the centre at Tirupati on 23.12.2017, 05.01.2018, 09.01.2018, 13.01.2018, 17.01.2018, 22.01.2018, 27.01.2018 and 01.02.2018, 02.02.2018 for scans and blood tests, purchasing medicines and injections etc. by paying necessary charges. On 08.02.2018 and 14.02.2018, 2nd complainant visited the opposite party centre at Tirupati for scan and for medicines and paid the charges. Later the complainants visited Chennai as per the instructions of opposite party authorities to admit in opposite party fertility centre and for that they collected Rs.2,48,000/- from the complainants towards IVF charges. The opposite party authorities instructed the complainants to stay in the hospital on monthly rent till the 2nd complainant conceived. The complainants paid some amount as advance of rent for the accommodation. The opposite party collected consultation fee and other charges on different dates before and after IVF towards medicines, scan, lab tests and accommodation etc. They have not given any reports of scan and lab tests, for which amounts were collected from the complainants. No proper counseling was given to the complainants. On 23.02.2018 semen analysis test of 1st complainant was done in the opposite party lab. On 02.03.2018 embryo transfer procedure was performed by Dr.Thomas. He told the complainants that if the process fails, he will again do ET with free of cost with the eggs, which have been kept safely. Injections were administered and medicines were given to 2nd complainant till 19.03.2018. The pregnancy test was conducted on 14.03.2018, 16.03.2018 and 19.03.2018, but the result is negative. The opposite party told the complainants that IVF failed and instructed the complainants to come on the 2nd day of next cycle of 2nd complainant for proceeding with IVF. The complainants came to know that due to over medication prescribed by the opposite party before and after ET procedure, the IVF failed and to cover-up the defects in the treatment, opposite party instructed the complainants to come again for treatment. On the 2nd day of next cycle, complainant went to opposite party at Chennai on 05.05.2018, there the 2nd complainant got normal scan and she was prescribed medicines for 21 days. The opposite party collected charges for the same and thereafter the complainants visited the opposite party on 24.05.2018, 04.06.2018, 19.06.2018, 25.06.2018 and 06.07.2018. The opposite party conducted normal scan and lab tests were conducted apart from giving costly injections and tablets to 2nd complainant on payment of charges. Further, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was collected from the complainants for IVF and asked them to come on 11.07.2018 to proceed with IVF. The complainants questioned the opposite party authorities about the assurance given by the opposite party that IVF will be done free of cost, if the 1st IVF failed. The opposite party has not displayed the schedule of all its charges in the fertility centre and simply demanding the money from the complainants in the name of treatment and medicines. Non issuance of scan reports and lab test reports amounts to unfair trade practice and failure of IVF due to over medication amounts to deficiency in service. The complainants suffered irreparable loss and mental agony due to failure of IVF. The opposite party cheated the complainants and extracted money from them. Hence, this complaint is filed seeking compensation as well as refund of medical expenses incurred by the complainants to the extent of Rs.4,25,000/- from the opposite parties.
3. The opposite party filed the written version contending as follows – At the outset complaint averments are denied. The opposite party never induced or lured the complainants as alleged by them to visit fertility centre for taking treatment for biological child. After thorough investigation only, the doctors who attended on the complainants opined that there is no alternative for them except to undergo IVF treatment with donor eggs and only after their consent for such treatment, opposite party had given IVF treatment to 2nd complainant. The hormone test for 2nd complainant was done by the opposite party at Tirupati and the semen analysis test for 1st complainant was done by him at their Chennai branch for the sake of convenience of complainants at their request and consent only. No single treatment or any kind of medicines were prescribed unnecessarily as alleged by the complainants. Similarly, the nature of treatment like hysteroscopy etc., were also given with the full consent in writing given by the complainants and the reports for each and every such treatment were given to the complainants then and there. The complainants themselves explained in their complaint all about the treatment given by the opposite party in their hospitals at Tirupati and Chennai. The complainants were given hospital accommodation on payment of necessary charges. The complainants were clearly informed about the testes to be conducted. There was no assurance given by Dr.Thomas, to perform IVF free of cost on the 2nd day of next cycle of 2nd complainant, if the 1st IVF fails. But the opposite party had agreed to do treatment free of cost and waived doctor fees wherever possible. The continuity or termination of any treatment, more particularly in cases of fertility, depends on the absorbency of medicines by the body of the patient and developments and effects and reaction of such treatments and all these things cannot be ascertained or informed to the patient at the beginning itself by any doctor. The complainants have come forward with false and imaginary allegations against the opposite party. The complainants abused the process of law by filing baseless complaint against the opposite party. There are no merits in their claim for refund of cost of treatment given by the opposite party. The fertility treatment involves huge expenditure, since the medicines and treatment are very costly. Utmost care has to be taken during the treatment. The complainants did not come forward to say that the treatment given by opposite party is wrong or unwarranted. It is only alleged that 2nd complainant could not get pregnancy even after treatment for fertility. But the success or failure of such medical treatment is not in the hands of the doctors or the hospitals. The opposite party or any other hospital will give treatment with 100% confidence by assuring positive results to the patient. It is stated that in one case, there was 22 IVF cycles and 10 abortions later, a Gujarat lawyer became a mom and an article in this connection is also filed. Even assuming without admitting that such an assurance of 100% success was given to the complainants, it depends upon the absorbency of the patient, which could be ascertained only after giving treatment and this was clearly informed to the complainants and their consent in writing was obtained by the opposite party. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The opposite party filed additional written version contending as follows – The physicians and surgeons at Chennai Fertility Centre are highly trained and have corresponding international medical qualifications. Some are trained abroad in U.K. Opposite party never promised 100% treatment to the complainants for getting child. The opposite party authorities have explained everything to the complainants in their own language and having understood the contents in the Consent Form, the complainants signed. In the Consent Form the success rate is mentioned as 40-50% and treatment does not guarantee 100% pregnancy, but best treatment available was given to the complainants in the hospital. The 2nd complainant AMH level was very low at 0.37, which means her ovaries have grown older and the ovarian ability to produce eggs have come down and if stimulated the response would be very poor, then the chances of success is very slim. This was the reason why she has been offered donor oocyte as option and the procedure was agreed by the complainants 1 and 2, and thereafter they signed in the Consent Form before proceeding with embryo transfer. The 1st complainant has erectile dysfunction and was having difficulty in collecting the semen sample on two occasions. The semen analysis report shows that sperms were not of optimal quality in shape number and movement and fertilizing ability to conceive by natural way. The 2nd complainant while undergoing endometrial preparation for the second time embryo transfer, but unfortunately left the process in the middle on 06.07.2018. The 1st complainant has severe male infertility problem, so the opposite party prescribed the medicines to support the quality of his sperms and the medicine prescribed are antioxidants, which will add value to the sperms when taken for treatment. He had difficulty in producing semen even after long time. The volume of the sample is low, since he has difficulty in erection that may be the reason in difficulty in giving sample. On receiving his sample given by him with much difficulty it was found to be Oligoasthenoteratozoospermia, which clearly states his sperm count is low, motility is low and morphology is also low, which clearly indicates severe male factor infertility. It is submitted that hysteroscopy is mandatory for the transfer of embryo to a safe place to enhance the implantation of the embryo. Commonly prescribed drugs were given to the 2nd complainant. The tests conducted on 14.03.2018 and 16.03.2018 was positive for pregnancy, but unfortunately on 19.03.2018 the reports were negative for pregnancy. So, the opposite party has discontinued the treatment and asked the complainants start fresh IVF cycle. Each and every treatment done by opposite party is for the benefit of the patient. The opposite party has given each and every scan test and laboratory reports along with its bills to the complainants by explaining about its results to them. But purposely they have not filed those reports in this case. There is no question of prescribing over medication to the complainants and as such allegation of deficiency of service is denied. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Complainant No.1 filed the chief evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of opposite party Dr.V.M.Thomas filed the chief evidence affidavit as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B7.
6. The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of opposite party? If so, to what extent the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?
7. Point:- As per the written arguments filed by the complainants, it is the case of the complainants that they were lured by the opposite party to undergo IVF treatment with donor egg without any alternative treatment, and as per the advice of the opposite party, 2nd complainant underwent several laboratory investigations and hormone tests, and also hysteroscopy on 16.11.2017 in the opposite party hospital at Chennai, and costly injections were given to 2nd complainant, but reports were not given to the complainants. It is their further case that the complainants went to Chennai as per the instructions of opposite party authorities, to get admitted in opposite party fertility centre by paying Rs.2,48,000/- towards IVF charges, but it is alleged that there was no post care treatment given to the person, who is subjected to IVF procedure. On 23.02.2018, 1st complainant underwent semen analysis test in the opposite party lab, but no report or bill was given to the complainants. On 02.03.2018 embryo transfer procedure was performed by the opposite party, and as per the instructions of opposite party injections and medicines were administered to 2nd complainant till 19.03.2018. Pregnancy tests were conducted on 14.03.2018, 16.03.2018, 19.03.2018 and it revealed negative results. It is contended that though opposite party assured that if IVF failed, he will conduct 2nd IVF without charging single pie, infact they charged heavy amount from the complainants. The complainants further contended that due to over medication prescribed by the opposite party before and after ET procedure, the IVF failed. On 2nd day of next cycle, complainants went to opposite party at Chennai on 05.05.2018. There the 2nd complainant got normal scan and she was prescribed medicines for 21 days, for which amount was collected. Complainants thereafter visited opposite party several times for lab tests and injections. On 11.07.2018, 1st complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards IVF charges. It is alleged that non-issuance of scan reports, lab test reports by opposite party authorities amounts to deficiency in service. The complainants therefore prayed for refund of charges of IVF and other expenses to the extent of Rs.4,25,000/-, in addition to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
8. The complainants filed memo contending that wrong treatment is done without any valid diagnosis reports and wrong medicines were prescribed to earn money by illegal means and that there is no medical record for IVF embryo transfer of complainants in opposite party hospital. Further, the opposite party Dr.Thomas, is not a qualified doctor to give treatment to the complainants. The complainants placed reliance on a decision reported in 1969 AIR 128, 1969 SCR (1) 206 between Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs. Trimbak Babu Godbole, wherein it is held at follows :–
“A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly holds forth that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient, owes certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, and a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties gives a right of action of negligence against him. The medical practitioner has a discretion in choosing the treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is wider in cases of emergency, but, he must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care according to the circumstances of each case”. |
9. On the other hand, the case of the opposite party is that complaint contains false and baseless allegations against the opposite party hospital. It is argued that there is no guarantee for IVF / ICSI treatment and no doctor or hospital will give any guarantee for the said treatment as per ICMR guidelines and it is evident from Consent Form-D given by the complainants 1 and 2 for IVF treatment. Once the complainants have given their consent as per ICMR guidelines before treatment, they have no right to allege that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party hospital. Further, it is stated that 1st complainant is more than 42 years old and 2nd complainant is more than 35 years old and since long time they did not have issues and therefore they approached the opposite party for IVF treatment voluntarily and they were not lured or induced by the opposite party with false promises. It is argued that opposite party doctors explained everything to the complainants in their own language and having understood the contents in Consent Form-D complainants signed. As per the Consent Form-D, complainants were made to know that there is no 100% guarantee of pregnancy even after taking IVF treatment. But the opposite party had given best treatment available with them.
10. Coming to B-Series documents, Ex.B1 is Consent Form given by complainants 1 and 2 dt:16.11.2017 and dt:26.02.2018 respectively. Both the complainants have signed in the Consent Form and there is no doubt about it. But the contention of complainants is that they were compelled to sign against their will. But the complainants have to prove the same. Except the evidence of PW-1, there is no other evidence to show that they were compelled to sign the Consent Form i.e. Ex.B1 against their will. Consent for surgical and investigative procedure was taken for conducting hysteroscopy and embryo transfer in the Consent Form. It is stated in Ex.B1 that there is no guarantee that the oocytes will be retrieved in all cases and will be fertilized and there is no certainty that a pregnancy will result from these procedures even in cases where good quality embryos are replaced and medical and scientific staff can give no assurance that any pregnancy will result delivery of a normal living child. The counsel for opposite party placed reliance on the following citation reported in 2008 (1) CPR 111 (NC) between Dr.B.N.Gurudev vs. Dr.N.Ramana and Ors. Wherein it is held that
“General consent for various tests and examinations given by educated wife and the patient, who was a veterinary doctor, no informed consent for amputation, evidence showing that surgeon told need of amputation to the wife of patient who became swooned and taken to separate room for treatment, no denial to this episode, amputation was done to save life of patient under emergency requirement. For the question, whether it can be informed that consent was obtained before performing surgery, the answer is ‘yes’ as per the citation. It is further held that consent form indicates that the consent was given by the wife of the patient who is an educated lady and she was staying along with him in the hospital for arteriogram examination, biopsy, transfusion or operation and for administration of anesthesia as well as post mortem in the unfortunate event of death. She also gave the consent for Angeiogram, femokropopileteal embolectomy. Further after the surgery, the patient has given consent for wound inspection as well as for wound debridness”. |
This decision was relied on by the opposite party to show that complainants agreed for undergoing necessary tests in the laboratory of opposite party hospital for IVF treatment and therefore the complainants now cannot contend that opposite party hospital unnecessarily advised them to undergo several tests in order to extract money from them.
In another decision reported in 2011(1) CPR 66 (NC) between Manimegalai vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., it is held that
“Death of deceased occurred in operation theatre while undergoing surgery for hernia. Complainant alleged medical negligence, insofar as written consent for conducting operation was concerned, the opposite parties produced the consent letter which showed that consent had been given by the deceased himself. No merit in the contention of complainants that due consent was not taken before carrying out the operation. It is therefore held that complainants were held unable to prove that due and proper procedure was not followed by the opposite parties”. |
11. The complainants did not examine any expert to prove that IVF treatment failed only on account of over medication. The opposite party contended that thorough investigation was done and no single treatment or any kind of medicines were given unnecessarily as alleged by the complainants, that the nature of treatment like hysteroscopy was done to check the womb with full consent in writing by the complainants, that embryo transfer procedure was done by opposite party consultant with the consent of the complainants and so it is for the complainants to prove that the failure of IVF treatment was due to over medication prescribed by the opposite party doctors before and after embryo transfer procedure.
12. The documentary evidence filed by the opposite party shows that they have given treatment to the complainants by following ICMR guidelines. The treatment given by the opposite party to the complainants was not referred to any expert in IVF treatment and there is no opinion of any expert against the findings, treatment and advice given by opposite party. The diagnosis and treatment given by the opposite party is very well known to the complainants and that is the reason why the complainants have not approached any other expert after the treatment. It is argued that complainants are not doctors and not an expert in the field of IVF to say that opposite party doctors have given over medication to 2nd complainant and due to that only IVF failed. We agree with the contention of the counsel for opposite party in this regard, as it is burden on the complainants to prove by medical evidence to show that the line of treatment given by opposite party is not on correct lines.
13. The complainants another contention is that semen analysis report dt:12.09.2017 issued by Crystal Diagnostic Centre is binding on opposite party and without any reason opposite party has advised to undergo another semen analysis in opposite party hospital. It is argued by opposite party counsel that the semen analysis report issued by Crystal Diagnostic Centre, Tirupati, has no value, since it was not issued by following the reference of World Health Organization-2010. Further, the said Diagnostic Centre is not a competent one and it is not an IVF Fertility Centre. Ex.B5 is semen analysis report dt:25.09.2017 of 1st complainant issued by opposite party hospital and the said report contains several tests and standards, whereas the semen analysis report issued by Crystal Diagnostic Centre did not contain such tests and standards. Ex.B5 reveals that sample given by 1st complainant is found to be Oligoasthenoteratozoospermia, which indicates that there is severe male factor infertility along with female infertility. The AMH of 2nd complainant was very low, which means that her ovaries have grown older and the ovarian ability to produce eggs have come down and if stimulated the response would be very poor, then the chances of success is very slim and therefore she has been offered donor egg as option and the said procedure was agreed by complainants 1 and 2 and they signed in the Consent Form before proceeding with embryo transfer.
14. The documentary evidence produced by complainants, except the semen analysis report, are not in dispute. It is no doubt true that huge amount is involved in the treatment of IVF and complainants paid amounts for undergoing tests and medicines. The case sheet of complainants maintained by opposite party and the investigation reports of 2nd complainant are marked as Exs.B3 and B4. The Consent Forms are marked Ex.B1. The donor egg screening report is marked as Ex.B6. Discharge Summary of complainants is marked as Ex.B7.
15. As per the complaint averments, they disputed the fact that they have undergone several tests for IVF treatment. The opposite party placed reliance on the following citations in support of their contention that the complainants failed to prove any medical negligence –
In 1999 3 CPJ 546 between Dr.R.K.Jain vs. Sunil, the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, held as follows –
“For proving negligence by a doctor complainant has to bring evidence to establish the allegations and expert evidence will be necessary in the same field of medicine. Complainants son got severely burnt on his thigh and appellant doctor provided treatment for some days injured victim got “Polio Myelitis” due to alleged wrong treatment. Complainant filed an affidavit of a BAMS doctor to support his allegation. Such a doctor could not be said to be an expert evidence about alleged wrong treatment. No evidence to establish that disease “Polio Myelitis” occurred due to wrong injections given by appellant to the patient. No affidavit of any Orthopedic expert. Order of District Forum awarding compensation was unsustainable”. |
In 2003 1 CPJ 365 between Babanrao Yadav vs. Lion Tarachand Bappa Hospital, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, it is held as follows -
“No expert medical opinion was brought to our notice to establish that the treatment given was wrong or negligent. The onus to prove this lies clearly on the complainant. Thus there is no satisfactory evidence before us of any deficiency in service or medical negligence on the part of the opposite party”. |
In 2018 1 CPR (NC) 507 between Dr.M.Kochar vs. Ispita Seal and Anr., the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it is held as follows –
“It is known that “No cure / no success is not a negligence”, thus fastening the liability upon the treating doctor is unjustified. The State Commission has erred in holding the OP liable without any cogent evidence or medical ground. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, the order of State Commission is set aside and the instant appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed”. |
In 2010 1 CPR (SC) 167 between Kusum Sharma and Ors vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is held as follows –
“A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession”. |
In 2018 CPR (NC) 414 between Harjeet Kaur vs. Kular Hospital and Ors., the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission it is held as follows –
“When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions”. |
16. Applying the principle of law laid down in the above cited decisions and the evidence placed before us, we are of the view that complainants failed to prove medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, for the reason that there is no expert evidence produced by them, to disprove the IVF treatment given in the opposite party hospital.
17. The citations submitted by the counsel for complainants may not be applicable to the facts of the present case on hand, since it is proved by evidence that opposite party is a qualified doctor and has given IVF treatment to the complainants, as per the evidence on record, and same was not disproved by the complainants by producing expert evidence. Hence, we are inclined to dismiss the complaint.
18. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 6th day of March, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.
PW-1: Sri B. Murali Mohan (Chief affidavit filed).
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.
RW-1: Sri Dr. V.M. Thomas (Chief affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s
Exhibits (Ex.A) | Description of Documents |
Original copy of Bunch of Receipts for amounts paid towards IVF treatment with the opposite party and other papers of CHENNAI FERTILITY CENTER (Opposite Party) relating to Tirupati and Chennai Branches. | |
Original copy of PAYMENT SLIP issued by CHENNAI FERTILITY CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Chennai (Opposite Party) to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to complainants. Dt: 06.07.2018. | |
Original copy of SEMEN ANALYSIS REPORT of the 2nd complainant (CRYSTAL DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE, TIRUPATI) and prescription for medicines prescribed by opposite party Dr. V.M. Thomas, Embryologist. Dt: 12.09.2017. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s
Exhibits (Ex.B) | Description of Documents |
Original copy of Forms (4) regarding ‘CONSENT FOR SURGICAL AND INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE(2)’, ‘CONSENT FOR OCYTE RETRIEVAL/EMBRYO TRANSFER’, ‘CONSENT FORM TO BE SIGNED BY THE COUPLE’ Dt: 26.02.2018. | |
Photo copy of FORM-D (Consent Form to be signed by the couple for IVF and ICSI (See Rule 15.1)) issued by the INDIAN COUNSIL FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH Guidelines). | |
Original copy of ‘CASE FILE (Reg No.201700776, Reg Date: 16/11/2017) CHENNAI FERTILITY CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CHENNAI) of complainants maintained by the opposite party. | |
Original copy of INVESTIGATION REPORTS of complainant No.2. Report Date: 14.03.2018, 19.03.2018, 04.06.2018, Request for Lab Investigations, Dt: 21.03.2018. | |
Original copy of SEMEN ANALYSIS REPORT of Complainant issued by CHENNAI FERTILITY CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, TIRUPATI . Dt: 25.09.2017. | |
DONORS EGG SCREENING REPORTS (9) namely Mrs. Yuvalakshmi(Report Dt:15.02.2018), Mrs. Prema (Report Dt:17.02.2018), Mrs. Parvathi(Report Dt:17.02.2018), Mrs. Mary Kowshika (Report Dt:28.02.2018) , Mrs. Saranya (Report Dt:23.02.2018), Mrs. Amala (Report Dt:19.02.2018), Mrs. Seetha (Report Dt:17.02.2018), Mrs. Kalpana (Report Dt:17.02.2018), Mrs. Bhuvaneshwari (Report Dt:25.02.2018) in Original. | |
Original copy of DISCHARGE SUMMARY of complainant issued by Dr. Chitra Ramanathan, Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, CHENNAI FERTILITY CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CHENNAI. |
Sd/-
President (FAC)
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to:- 1. The complainants.
2. The opposite party.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly 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.