The complainant side is present today. We have heard submission of Ld advocate Mr P.M. Sarma on the point of admissibility of the complaint filed by Sri Suraj Newar and his wife Mrs Arunima Newar against Dr Bhargav Bhuyan , Dr . G. Brahma and Dr Dhrubo Gogoi.
We have perused the complaint as well as submision of Ld advocate Mr P.M. Sarma . We have found that the crux of the complainants pleading is that Complainant No-2 during gestation period of her pregnancy regularly visited Opp.Party No-2 , who was practising as physician at Gakul Medicos (Basistha Chariali) asw well as at Marwari Maternity Hospital; and under his supervision ,Micro-Diagnostic Clinic & Research Laboratory was regularly collecting necessary samples from her and conducted different tests in many occasions; and under his prescription USG test of her pregnancy was done by Dr Dhrubo Jyoti Gogoi at Ultra Care Diagnostic Centre ,Basistha Chariali, but in the report of USG, the doctor concerned nowhere mentioned about abnormalities of the foetus; and on 19/04/2016 she gave birth of a female baby with physical deformity having no right hand from down the elbow, which is contradicted the report of tests and in result complainants suffered mental agony and the fact of lack of right hand of the baby would affect the prospect of her marriage and career of the said baby in time and that is why both complainant pray for directing the opp. parties to pay them compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs)only. After perusing the documents filed by the complainants it is found that nthe Complainant No-2 Mrs A.Newar was under treatment of Dr G.Brahma (Opp.Party No-2) of Gakul Medicos from 20/08/2015 to 19/04/2016 and she gave birth of a female baby at Marwari Maternity Hospital on 19/04/2016 , but the baby was normal in all regards expect having no right hand from down the elbow. It is seen that the lacking of right hand by the baby is not result of any action of the doctors who provided the treatment of the Complainant No-2 . It is also found that in no occasion, Dr Bhargav Bhuyan,Dr G.Brahma and Dr Dhrubo Gogoi ngave assurance to the complainant that the baby to be born would not retain any physical handicapness.It is seen that the doctors namely the opp. parties have done all the relevant tests of the blood samples etc. and also the USG test of pregnancy. The USG was done at Ultra Care Diagnostic Centre, Basistha Chariali by Dr Dhrubo Gogoi (Opp.Party No-3) . After perusing the USG report , it is found that in the said test , it is detected that (i) cardiac activity of the baby in the womb is normal and regular, FHR:123 b/m (ii) Placenta is located fundobody posteriorty , grade I maturity , now low lying ,(iii) Liquor volume is adequate and clear, (iv) Active fetal movement seen , (v) Nasal bone is normally visualized , (vi) Nuchal thickness is normal -1.9 mm. From the USG report , it is seen that at the USG , the doctor found that the nasal bone of foetus is visualized which means that other bones are not visualized. It is also seen that the said USG was done at a period of 23 (twenty three) weeks 5(five) days of gestation and thereafter no USG was done and in the said USG the foetus was found in required normal health and hence the doctor might have presumed that the foetus lacking no anybody part. The baby was delivered on 14/04/2016 in normal health condition except lacking of right hand below the elbow which is not result of any wrong treatment. It is found that lacking one hand of the baby is an act of God for that the opp. parties are no way responsible and doctors duty is to make delivery of the baby , not to certify about the sex and retention of all body parts; and therefore the mother of a baby or her relatives cannot ask the doctors to certfy these two matters. It is already found that the baby was born with good health without causing any injury to the Complainant No-2 . It is the duty of doctors to recover the baby from the womb of the mother without causing injury either to the mother or to the baby. In the instant case the baby was safely delivered without causing any injury to the baby and the mother (the Complainant No-2). So, we are of opinion that it is not a case of medical negligence. So, we hold that complainants have no prima facie case against the opp. parties. Hence, the complaint cannot be admitted and it is dismissed summarily.