BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 111 of 2011
Date of Institution : 12.5.2011
Date of decision : 10.8.2016
Ram Maheshwari son of Sh.Narender Kumar, r/o Suratgarhia Bazar, Sirsa Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Dr.Shakuntla Chaudhary, Chaudhary Nursing Home, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
In brief, complainant’s case is that on 13.7.2010, complainant took his wife Smt.Sonika, who was pregnant to the op hospital for check-up. Op-doctor started the treatment. Thereafter, there was continuous bleeding and Smt.Sonika was again taken to the op hospital. Op doctor advised ultrasound. In the ultrasound report, “Dead Fetus” was verified. Op doctor advised for abortion and ultimately op doctor conducted abortion on 31.8.2010 itself. After abortion, there was serious pain in stomach and she was also suffering from mental disturbance due to making poison in her body. It was because of the reason that abortion was not done successfully. On 24.10.2010 continuously bleeding was started and did not stop upto 29.10.2010. But, op did not reply satisfactorily and replied that it is a general tendency of bleeding after abortion. After that on 29.10.2010 Smt.Sonika was taken to Dr.Santosh Bishnoi for treatment, who advised her to get Ultrasound again. In the Ultrasound report, some Fetus remained inside was reported. On the basis of this report, Dr.Santosh Bishnoi again conducted abortion and removed the pieces of Fetus. It is alleged that due to wrong treatment by the op doctor, the hemoglobin of Sonika also fallen. The complainant, his wife and all other family members suffered shock, pain and mental tension etc. Complainant also spent more than Rs.30,000/- for treatment of his wife. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Op appeared and contested the case. It is replied that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the op. it is further replied that with the consent of complainant and his wife, abortion was conducted successfully, medicines were prescribed and was advised to visit the op for follow up treatment, but they never visited op doctor after 31.8.2010. it is further replied that allegations of the complaint have been enquired by the Board of Doctors and report of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa in this regard is also on the file. Remaining allegations of the complaint has been denied.
3. By way of evidence, the complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1, prescription slip Ex.CW1/A, ultrasound report dt. 31.8.2010 Ex.CW1/B and CW1/I, prescription slip Ex.CW1/C, Ultrasound report dt. 29.10.2010 Ex.CW1/D, laboratory report dt. 29.10.2010 Ex.CW1/E, certificate of Dr.Santosh Bishnoi hospital Ex.CW1/F, prescription slips Ex.CW1/G, Ex.CW1/H, Ex.CW1/J, Ex.CW1/K and Ex.CW1/L, receipt dt. 18.10.2010 Ex.CW1/M. Whereas, the Op doctor produced her affidavit Ex.R1, letter dt; 22.6.2011 Ex.R2, enquiry report Ex.R3 and statement of op doctor before Enquiry Board Ex.R4..
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. The fact of first abortion by op doctor is admitted. However, as per the case of the op doctor, Smt. Sonika never visited her after the abortion on 31.8.2010 for follow up treatment as advised by op doctor. The opinion of the enquiry conducting doctors is that “there is time lapse of almost two months between the D&E conducted by Dr.Shakuntla Chaudhary and evacuation done by Dr.Santosh Bishnoi. The query of RPOC as reported in the second ultrasound done at Garg Diagnostic Centre, Sirsa, it is not certain that the RPOC reported are either actual RPOC or some other endometrial pathology as this has not been supported by any other histropathological examination report. Even if the RPOC is taken into consideration then it is possible that they may be due to second pregnancy which could have occurred during the time lapse of two months. In the absence of any record stating follow up of the case by Dr.Shakuntla Chaudhary the complaint of medical negligence cannot be sustained”.
6. In view of Certificate Ex.CW1/F issued by the doctor who conducted the second abortion, Smt.Sonika appeared on 29.10.2010 in OPD as incomplete abortion. Her U.S.G shows retained product of conception. Her evacuation was done on the same day. In view of the above referred opinion of the enquiry conducting doctors, it was possible that it may be due to second pregnancy which could have occurred during the time lapse of two months.
7. But, certificate Ex.CW1/F makes it clear that the patient went to another doctor with incomplete abortion and was treated there.
8. As a result of above discussion, we are of the view that from the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that there was no clear deficiency in service in conducting the first abortion. Keeping in mind that there was necessity of second abortion within the period of two months from the date of first abortion, we feel it will be justified if the expenses incurred by the complainant after the first abortion for treatment of his wife, are imposed upon the op doctor. Accordingly, we direct the Op-doctor to pay Rs.30,000/- (i.e. expenses incurred by the complainant as alleged) to the complainant within a period of one month from today. With these observations, the present complaint stands disposed off. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:10.8.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
D.C.D.R.F.,Sirsa.
