Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/8/2015

Smt. Kavitha, W/o V Chandra Mouli, advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr Asha Latha, W/o. Dr.K.Venkateswarlu - Opp.Party(s)

N. Ananda Kumar

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 28.01.2015

Order Date:02.03.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.08/2015

 

 

Between

 

 

Smt. Kavitha,

W/o. V.Chandra Mouli,

Advocate,

Hindu, aged about 35 years,

D.No.14/1262, Kaveri Cross,

Ram Nagar Colony,

Chittoor Town & District.                                                               … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

Dr. Asha Latha,

W/o. Dr.K.Venkateswarlu,

Hindu, aged about 64 years,

Asha Latha Medicare Pvt. Ltd.,

Test Tube Baby & Research Centre & IVF Centre,

Reddy & Reddy Colony,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 21.02.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.N.Ananda Kumar, counsel for complainant, and Sri.K.Sampath Kumar, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections –10 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment in a negligent manner, for pain and development of new ailments due to side effects of the hormone injections from which complainant is suffering till today, 2) for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and her staff by insulting the patients and administration of drugs in a rough manner, 3) for causing mental agony and financial loss sustained by the complainant, and for such other or further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.     

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:- Since the complainant Smt.Kavitha, has no issues, she approached the opposite party Dr.Asha Latha, who is maintaining fertility centre and giving treatment for procuring children by test tube or by IVF method, and explained her problems. The opposite party initially prescribed some medicines and later on 11.01.2013 conducted hysteroscopy and biopsy of uterus. That on 23.01.2013 after verifying the laboratory reports, the opposite party stated that everything is normal and the complainant can conceive by using latest ICSI method. The opposite party collected Rs.1,30,000/- on 26.01.2013 for ICSI treatment and conducted first sitting on 14.02.2013 by giving hormone stimulation injections for 8 days. For the 1^st sitting opposite party collected 12 ova from the complainant, out of them 3 embryos were transplanted and 9 embryos were retained. 1^st sitting was failed. 2^nd sitting was conducted on 11.06.2013, at this time also opposite party has collected 8 ova and transplanted 4 embryos. After two weeks it was informed that 2^nd attempt was also failed. Again in the 1^st week of November 2013, the opposite party collected 9 ova stating that previous embryos became weak and used 4 embryos on 18.11.2013. About 2 weeks thereafter the opposite party informed the complainant that the 3^rd sitting was also failed and asked the complainant to go for 4^th sitting in the month of January 2014 after reducing overweight and assured success in 4^th attempt and asked the complainant to join the new batch, later complainant did not receive any intimation from the opposite party.

            3.  That due to hyperbolic promises and due to administration of hormone injections by the opposite party, the complainant gained overweight, suffered from severe joint pains with cracking sounds and facial oedema with tumors etc. side effects. The complainant became panic and consulted another doctor for treatment to the side effects. That doctor told that due to heavy dosage of hormone injections, those side effects were developed. That the complainant was ill-treated by Dr.Sirisha and a nurse by name Krishnaveni, who were incharge of fertility centre of opposite party. They were harsh while giving injections. The complainant has spent Rs.10,00,000/- for the treatment.

            4.  Due to the side effects, complainant suffered a lot mentally, her health was ruined, and even now she is suffering from many ailments referred to above apart from giddiness and other new gynecological problems. The opposite party did not account for the old embryos, which are the exclusive property of the complainant. She got issued notice on 18.08.2014 demanding the compensation for wrong diagnosis and also demanding explanation for the embryos retained with the opposite party, for which opposite party gave evasive reply. There is negligence on the part of the opposite party because of which the complainant suffered from side effects and monitory loss. Hence the complaint. 

            5.  The opposite party filed her written version stating that the complainant approached the opposite party, and the opposite party clarified her doubts in respect of her infertility and also about the pros and cons of ICSI treatment. Further the opposite party explained that globally success rate is only 30% - 37% as per books of international worldwide publications and also gave printed forms about the success rate procedures, complications and monitory implications. The complainant and her husband after going through the procedures, they have given written consent. That on 11.01.2013 complainant was subjected to necessary protocol of tests including hysteroscopy and basic medical treatment. After verifying the reports and after giving counseling on 23.01.2013, the opposite party took a decision for ICSI treatment.

            6.  That the opposite party started hormone stimulation injections for 8 days till 21.02.2013. That the opposite party on 23.02.2013 collected 8 ova from the complainant, out of them 6 ova were fertilized, 4 embryos were grade-1, 2 embryos were grade-3; grade-3 embryos were discarded and grade-1 embryos were transferred on 26.02.2013. On conducting blood and urine test about 2 weeks thereafter results were found to be negative. That the complainant was asked to come after one month for 2^nd sitting, but she came to the opposite party in the month of June 2013 i.e. after  3 months. She was not given any hormone injections during the said 3 months period.

            7.  As there were no frozen eggs, complainant was advised to undergo hormone stimulation injections. During the process opposite party collected 11 ova, out of them 7 ova were taken and 4 ova freezed. Out of 7 ova, 4 embryos are grade-1, which were transferred on 13.06.2013. On blood test after 2 weeks it is found that the 2^nd sitting was also negatived. That the complainant came to opposite party in the month of November 2013 voluntarily and enquired about frozen eggs and success rate of frozen eggs and fresh eggs. The opposite party explained that the success rate will be 15% - 20% versus 30% - 37%. After 3^rd sitting in the month of November 2013, the complainant did not visit the opposite party hospital.

            8.  That the opposite party followed the standard protocol management of ICSI with prescribed dosage of hormones. That the side effects are temporary while receiving hormone injections. Once injections were stopped, the side effects will subside. The complainant never had any severe side effects except swelling at injection site. That the complainant had taken hormone injections to her house and taken injections from persons known to her, but not from the staff of the opposite party. There is no either negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            9.  Complainant and opposite party have filed their evidence affidavits as P.W.1 and R.W.1 respectively and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.B1 to B5. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.

            10.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is negligence much less medical negligence and deficiency

                  in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged?    

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            (iii) To what relief?

            11.  Point No.(i):-  in order to prove this point, the burden heavily lies on the complainant. For the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party – Doctor, the complainant has to prove that the diagnosis made by the opposite party is wrong and that the treatment given by the opposite party is also wrong / incorrect. The case of the complainant is that she approached the opposite party on 09.01.2013 for the 1^st time and narrated grievances of her infertility, for which the opposite party also clarified her doubts and advised to go for ICSI method for fertility. On 11.01.2013 the opposite party conducted hysteroscopy and biopsy of uterus and sent the piece of uterus for test (biopsy) and asked the complainant to come to the opposite party on 23.01.2013, that on that day, the opposite party after verifying the reports narrated the pros and cons of ICSI treatment, its side effects and monitory involvements etc. and also suggested to go for ICSI treatment. For the said purpose, according to complainant, the opposite party has collected Rs.1,30,000/- and another sum of Rs.60,000/-, totaling Rs.1,90,000/-. On 14.02.2013 the opposite party started 1^st sitting ICSI treatment with hormone stimulation injections for 8 days till 21.02.2013 admittedly. That the opposite party has collected 12 ova from the complainant and used 3 embryos and retained 9 embryos stating that they will be kept in frozen for the next time if necessary, and asked the complainant to come after one month. But the complainant approached the doctor in the month of June 2013. On 11.06.2013 opposite party repeated the process of ICSI treatment and collected 8 ova and transplanted 4 embryos on 13.06.2013 and advised the complainant to come after 2 weeks. The 1^st attempt which was made on 23.02.2013 was failed; as such 2^nd sitting was advised. Two weeks after 13.06.2013 the opposite party after examining the necessary blood and urine tests stated to the complainant that the 2^nd sitting was also negatived. She advised the complainant to come again for 3^rd sitting. On 3^rd sitting also the opposite party collected 9 ova and used 4 embryos on 18.11.2013, later 2 weeks thereafter opposite party stated that 3^rd attempt was also negatived. That the complainant was told to participate in the fresh batch, but the complainant did not go to the opposite party from 18.11.2013 onwards. Thus according to the complainant, the opposite party diagnosed the disease of the complainant wrongly and treatment is also not in accordance with the protocol standards. That the remaining ova, so collected from the complainant were not returned to the complainant nor explained about those remaining ova / embryos.

            12.  For the purpose of ICSI the opposite party has conducted necessary required tests and after going through the reports only, she advised the complainant to go for ICSI tests. The Diagnostic Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy / EM Biopsy is as follows: “Mocktest:- +ve, enter at 6’o clock & cavity towards lt side, AV UCL:3.75, Cavity – regular, Both Ostea visualized – PCRTB :- -ve, HPE: late proliferative, it was under Ex.B3. As per Ex.A4 Real time B mode Ultra Sonography the impression that was found is 1) Bulky Uterus with Adenomyosis, 2) Right sided Hydrosalphinges(+). This diagnosis was not challenged before any expert or any expert opinion is taken against these findings / impression. In the same Ex.A4 the medicines that were prescribed by the doctor / opposite party are T. Doxyt – 10, T.flagyl – 10, T.Zolareb.D – 10, T.Dolo 650 – 5, T.folvite – 30, T.Duoluton.L, T.Ovisery – 60. These tablets alone were prescribed by the doctor. In the Hysteroscopy dt:11.01.2013 Findings are 1) Mock test – Postive, OS enter at 6’ o clock & cavity towards Lt. side anteverted, 2) UCL – 3.75, 3) Cavity – regular, 4) both ostia visualized, 5) endometrial Currettings – sent for PCR – TB & HPE. These findings and the treatment were not referred to any expert and there is no opinion of any expert against these findings and advice prescribed by the opposite party. Therefore, the diagnosis is well known to the complainant as well as the doctor. That for the infertility problem of the complainant the opposite party (doctor) suggested ICSI treatment for procuring children by the complainant, but unfortunately the said tests though conducted in 3 sittings, they were negatived. Unless the opinion of an expert is there to show that the finding / diagnosis and treatment given by the opposite party is wrong or not in accordance with medical standards in vogue, it cannot be said that treatment is found to be false or incorrect or diagnosis is wrong, and it cannot be said that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The learned counsel for complainant relied on a decision reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2931 – Dr.J.J.Merchant and others Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, this decision is relating to directing the complainant to approach Civil Court on the ground that complicated questions are involved, as such there would be delay in disposing the case, as against summary procedure prescribed in the Act, the facts of the case are not applicable to the case on hand.  

            13.  That apart Ex.A2, which contains the documents 1 to 70, out of them 1 to 3 said to be the prescriptions and 12 to 70 are the receipts. The documents 1 to 3 do not contain either the date or name of the doctor or even signature of the doctor, who prescribed those medicines. There are plenty of medicines prescribed in those documents 1 to 3 in Ex.A2. Out of them some of the medicines such as Gluconam SR, Ecosprin etc. may not be pertain to the complainant because normally those tablets will be suggested for diabetic patients. The writing in those documents 1 to 3 appears to be written by a person, who is not relevant to the medical field, and a person, who studied 4^th or 5^th standard. Therefore, they cannot be accepted as genuine one. Ex.A4 clearly shows the hand-writing of the doctor / opposite party. If this hand-writing is compared with the hand-writing in documents 1 to 3, they can be straight away ignored. Apart from it documents 5, 6, 7 and 8 were written on a small rough papers by somebody, those documents also do not contains the date or signature of the person who prescribed, either the doctor or somebody else, they are on small waste slips it appears. So far as the receipts under document Nos.9 to 70 under Ex.A2 are worth more than Rs.9,00,000/-. Those prescriptions shows number of medicines in bulk quantity. Out of the medicines mentioned therein Deriphllin injections, Avil injections, Decadron injections, Insulin syring, were also there. Since the complainant herself deposed in her evidence that she never suffered from Asthama, when that is the case, why the above referred medicines were purchased. Under Ex.A2, some medicines covered by document No.32 dt:08.05.2013, document No.33 dt:13.05.2013, document No.34 dt:28.05.2013 and document No.35 dt:28.05.2013 were not covered by the period during which the complainant took treatment from the opposite party. The complainant has approached the opposite party and took treatment in the month of February, later in the month of June and lastly in the month of November, in between she did not approach the opposite party, when that is the case, who prescribed all these documents in the month of May 2013, when those medicines were not covered by the medicines prescribed by the doctor under Ex.A4. Similarly, there are some more document Nos.55, 56 and 57 under which the complainant purchased some more medicines, which were not prescribed by the doctor in the month of October 2013. So, it can be safely held that, whatever the medicines purchased by the complainant under the document Nos.9 to 70 under Ex.A2 were not supported by proper prescriptions, and that alleged medicines were not prescribed by the opposite party. The medicines that were purchased under document Nos.9 to 70 under Ex.A2 are also related to a person, who is suffering from Diabetes, Asthama etc., apart from number of steroids, why those medicines purchased in the name of complainant was not mentioned anywhere in the pleadings or in the evidence of P.W.1 or in her written arguments etc. If it is true that the complainant has used all those medicines covered by the document Nos.9 to 70 under Ex.A2 and some other documents covered by Ex.A3, necessarily the health of the complainant will be spoiled. The consequences of rashes that were developed on the face of the complainant as shown under Ex.A5 may be due to usage of bulk quantity of the medicines covered by document Nos.9 to 70 under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, as those medicines were not prescribed by the opposite party – doctor, she cannot be held responsible for those side effects.

            14.  That apart the complainant did not mention in the complaint or in her chief affidavit that she has taken treatment from some other doctors prior to approach the opposite party, but in the evidence of P.W.1 during cross examination, complainant admitted that in between the period of treatment of opposite party, she has taken treatment from Dr.Mamatha, and she also admitted that she has taken DNC treatment at Chittoor, as she suffered from miscarriage and she also taken treatment in the year 2012 at SRMC hospital and took treatment at CMC Vellore in September 2012, these facts were not mentioned in the complaint. There is a gap of 3 months between 1^st sitting IVF treatment and 2^nd sitting IVF treatment. Similarly there is a gap of 3 months from the 2^nd sitting and 3^rd sitting. After 3^rd sitting the complainant did not visited the opposite party hospital. For the reasons best known to the complainant, the medicines in document Nos.9 to 70 covered under Ex.A2 and also another document covered by Ex.A3 filed in this Forum. So far as Ex.A1 is concerned two documents are there, one is receipt for Rs.1,30,000/- dt:26.01.2013, another receipt dt:07.11.2013 is filed showing as IVF amount of Rs.60,000/-, but it was not signed by anybody. It appears that the first document under receipt No.409 alone is a genuine one. For payment of Rs.1,30,000/-, the complainant has claimed Rs.20,00,000/-, that too without proving that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Their Lordships of National Commission in a decision reported in 11(2014) CPJ 368 (NC) – Madaan Surgical and Maternity Hospital & Anr. Vs. Santhosh & Anr. held that “the liability of a doctor arises not when the patient has suffered any injury, but when the injury has resulted due to the conduct of the doctor, which fallen below that of reasonable care. In another words, doctor is not liable for every injury suffered by a patient. He is liable for only those that are consequence of a breach of his duty. Hence, once the existence of a duty has been established, the patient must still prove the breach of duty and the causation. In case there is no breach or the breach did not cause the damage, the doctor will not be liable”. In this case complainant failed to establish the breach of duty on the part of the opposite party.     

The opposite party in her deposition as well as in her written version specifically contended that she did counseling for both the complainant and her husband and also supplied the printed forms about the consequences of ICSI test complications and financial involvement etc. to the complainant and her husband, which were gone through by them and then given consent in writing under Ex.B1. The opposite party further contended that the patient / complainant has submitted her previous medical record and she has gone through and mentioned as hypothyroidism. That she also conducted test in connection with Asthma. As mentioned in Ex.A4 she has conducted the complete blood picture test in which all blood cells counts are mentioned, the term GRA includes esnophylia. By the time the patient came to the opposite party, her asthma was under control, as there was a chance for recurring asthma while giving treatment for infertility, as a precaution, the doctor advised the complainant to continue the inhaler. Normally Decadron will be prescribed for asthma patients and antihistamine including for allergy. She also deposed that the defect she observed with the complainant is chronic endometriosis and hydrosalpingitis, that she sent endometrium biopsy to the laboratory for HPE. The report of histopathology is correct. She further stated that it is true that if one fallopian tube is defective, it is possible to conceive if the second fallopian tube releasing ovaries. She also deposed that, it is true that left tube and ovary appeared normal according to the test conducted in 2011 in other institute CMC, Vellore. She stated that for implantation of embryo endometrium must be 8 to 10 mm. She denied the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the complainant that 6 mm thickness of endometrium is sufficient for implantation of embryo, that the defect in fallopian tubes can be detected by conducting sonosalphingography and HSG, that the opposite party conducted HSG test and observed both left and right fallopian tubes were blocked, the X-ray was handed-over to the husband of the patient / complainant. The opposite party further mentioned during her cross examination that ICSI (intra cytoplasmic sperm injection), we give ovaries stimulation with FSH injections and HMG injections and GNRHA injections and then humanchorionic gonodotrophin injections followed by projesteron tablets and other supportive tablets, it is true that the medicines referred to above are hormone simulative medicine. She admitted that there may be side effects due to hormone stimulative medicines. There is no scope for hot flushes by using stimulative medicines. In the written version itself the opposite party specifically mentioned that if any side effects are there due to hormone stimulative injections, they will be subsided immediately on stopping of those injections, that too those injections were stopped in the month of November 2013 itself, as such there is no scope for developing rashes on the face of the complainant in the year 2014.

15.  Medical Negligence is defined as “bad or un-skilful practice on the part of a doctor or surgeon resulting in injury to the patient or the failure of a doctor to exercise the required degree of care, skill and diligence”. It can also be said otherwise that “Medical Negligence” means failure on the part of the doctor to act in accordance with medical standards in vogue, which are being practiced by an ordinarily and reasonably competent man practicing the same act. The complainant failed to establish that there is failure on the part of the doctor (opposite party) to attain that standard of care prescribed by the law and thereby committed breach of such duty and the doctor also failed in exercising duty of care in the administration of treatment.

16.  The counsel for opposite party relied on a decision reported in AIR 2009(SC) 2049 – Martin F. D’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, wherein the complainant who is a chronic renal failure patient took treatment in Nanavati hospital, Mumbai on 24.04.1991. At that stage the respondent / complainant was undergoing haemodialysis twice a week. Investigations were underway to find out a suitable donor. The respondent does not want to admit in any hospital despite medical advise, though he was suffering from high fever. Finally he was agreed to admit in the hospital due to serious condition as his fever was 1040F. The respondent’s medical reports reveals that the respondent / complainant is also suffering from blood and urine track infection and anemia infection, as such he was treated by administering Amikacin. Since the urine infection was sensitive to Amikacin, Augmentin (375mg.) capsules also administered. While so, on 08.06.1991 the respondent despite appellant’s advise get himself discharged from Nanavati hospital. Since the respondent was suffering from blood and urinary infection and had refused to come for haemodialysis on alternate days, the appellant suggested injection Amikacin (500 mg) twice a day. On 25.06.1991 the respondent at his own accord was admitted to Prince Aly Khan hospital, there also the complainant did not comply deafness, during this period he conversed with the doctors normally, as is evident from their evidence. On 07.07.1992 the respondent filed complaint before the National Commission in O.P.No.178/1992 claiming Rs.12,00,000/- as his hearing had been affected. On considering the opinion of two experts, the National Commission awarded Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.08.1992, as well as Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs. Against the judgment of the National Commission dt:09.04.2002, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the appeal setting the judgment of the National Commission and dismissed the complaint with costs referring to earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew reported in 2005 CJ (SC) 593 holding that the complainant failed to establish the negligence and wrong diagnosis on the part of the appellant. 

17.  The learned counsel for the opposite party also relied on another decision reported in 1997 CJ (NCDARC) 293 Sardool Singh Vs. Muni Lal Chopra; and another decision reported in 2004 CJ (NCDRC) 794 Ajay Kumar Vs. Devendra Nath; and also another decision reported in 2004 CJ (NCDRC) 861 Akhil Kumar Jain Vs. Lallan Prasad.  These decisions though relates to medical negligence, they did not apt for the facts of the case on hand, and no decisions are filed relating to any complaint of negligence in giving treatment or diagnosis in respect of treatment for infertility, which is the subject matter of this case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the facts of the above 3 decisions are not applicable, as they were not relating to the treatment for infertility.        

            18.  For the reasons best known to the complainant, she has not mentioned the name of the doctor from whom she has taken treatment at Chittoor and Mamatha hospital, and what are the medicines they prescribed, for what purpose she has taken treatment from those doctors were not mentioned. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is failed to establish that there is negligence much less medical negligence on the part of the opposite party and also failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly this point is answered.

            19. Point No.(ii):- to answer this point, the claim of the complainant for Rs.20,00,000/- basing on the prescriptions which were not signed by the doctor, who prescribed them or the date on which they were prescribed and also the receipts, documents 9 to 70 and some other documents under Ex.A3 for which there is no corresponding prescriptions is appears to be unsustainable. Actually the amount covered by Ex.A1 in receipt No.409 is for Rs.1,30,000/-, perhaps the said amount of Rs.1,30,000/- might have been collected for the ICSI method for procuring the children by the complainant. Whatever the prescriptions given by the doctor referred to above under Ex.A4 were not found fault by any other doctor or by any expert in medical field, particularly in gynecology and relating to infertility. Therefore, those medicines covered by Exs.A2 and A3 may cause multiple complications in the health of the complainant, because those medicines were normally prescribed for asthma patients, diabetic patients and other steroids for some other purpose. Therefore, those medicines may not be advisable for the complainant and not prescribed by any competent doctor, but it appears that those medicines were used by the complainant consequent upon some complications or side effects might have developed in the health of the complainant including the rashes on her face causing disfiguration as contended by the complainant. As the receipts and prescriptions covered by Exs.A2 and A3 were not supported by any prescriptions prescribed by the opposite party, the claim of the complainant basing on the receipts under documents 9 to 70 under Ex.A2 and some other documents under Ex.A3 cannot be accepted, as there were no proper prescriptions for those medicines. The complainant might have known the reasons as to why she has used all those unwarranted medicines and steroids. For unnecessary use of un-prescribed medicines by the complainant, the opposite party cannot be find fault. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant is appears to be unsustainable and unjust and therefore she is not entitled for the reliefs sought for.

            20.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish either the medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and also failed to establish that she is entitled to the reliefs sought for, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            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 2^nd day of March, 2017.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                           

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:   Smt. Kavitha

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party/s.

 

RW-1:  Dr. Asalatha

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original two (2) receipts for Rs.1,30,000/- & Rs.60,000/- issued by the opposite party for ICSI treatment.  Dt: 26.01.2013 and 07.11.2013.
	Original medical receipts purchased by complainant on prescription of opposite party. Total No.74
	Original Laboratory charges spent by complainant on the prescription of opposite party. Total No.22.
	Original laboratory reports. Total No.27.
	Original Photos 4 in number with C.D. showing the side effects on the face of complainant.
	Office copy of Legal Notice with Postal Receipt & Postal Acknowledgement (Dt: 28.08.2014).  Dt: 18.08.2014.
	Original reply notice given by opposite party through her counsel. Dt: 09.09.2014.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Original document of consent form. Dt: 26.01.2013.
2.	Original document of format detailing I.V.F/ICSI  methods, observations. Dt: 26.01.2013.
3.	Original document of I.V.F registration for unit’s clinical history.
4.	Original document of EMBRYOS transfer form. Dt: 26.02.2013.
5.	Original document of EMBRYOS transfer form. Dt: 13.06.2013.

 

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

   

           Copies to:-      1.  The complainant.

                                   2.  The opposite party.