Delhi

North East

CC/308/2014

Kamal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Archana Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 308/14

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Kamal Sharma S/o Sh. Subhash Chand Sharma   Smt. Shradha Sharma W/o Sh. Kamal Sharma   Both R/o P-22-A3, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095	Complainants
	Versus
1.           2.         3.         4.	Dr. Archana Gupta W/o Dr. Rajiv Gupta Karuna Hospital D-62, Dilshad Colony Delhi-110095   Dr. Rajiv Gupta Karuna Hospital D-62, Dilshad Colony Delhi-110095   National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office(460701) First 710-711, Opp. Vijaya Bank Soti Ganj, Meerut-250001 U.P. ( Deleted vide order dated 09.01.20)   Karuna Hospital D-62, Dilshad Colony Delhi-110095	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2                     Opposite Party No.3         Opposite Party No.4

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

13.08.14 31.01.23 10.05.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainants

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that the Complainant No.2 got treatment for her twin pregnancy at Opposite Party hospital. The Complainant No.2 has bleeding from beginning of her pregnancy and Opposite Party No.2 misguieded her and later recommended immediate premature delivery. On the recommendation of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant No.2 got admitted in Opposite Party hospital on 02.01.14 and completed all formalities for conducting C-section immediately but Opposite Party No.1 avoided the operation of Complainant No.2 and left her in immense pain all night. The Complainant No.1 stated that he approached nurses of Opposite Party hospital and they figured out that mouth of uterus of Complainant No.2 was open and the head of the child was coming out, hence she immediately conducted the delivery in a normal manner, which was otherwise to be conducted through C-section. The Complainant No.2 stated that her delivery was conducted in normal manner in absence of any doctor. The Complainant No.2 gave birth to two pre mature males on 03.01.14  thereafter x-ray was done and Complainants were not informed that lungs of the children were not fully developed and they were required to be put on ventilator/given 3^rd level nursery facilities, as the same were not available in Opposite Party hospital. On 04.01.14 child specialist advised Complainants to shift their new born babies to other hospital but Opposite Party No.1 convinced the Complainants for not doing the same. On midnight of 05.01.14 Opposite Party No.2 called the Complainant No.1 and asked them to immediately shift the newly born babies to some other well-facilitated hospital, on the pretext that the health of the children were deteriorating and was critical and thereafter Opposite Parties immediately discharged Complainant No.2. On 06.01.14 morning Opposite Party No.1 arranged ambulance and Complainants shifted their new born babies to other hospital. The Complainants stated that due to negligence of Opposite Party the older child out of twins suffered clotting and retention of water in the brain. As a result he had to undergo surgery. The Complainants stated that they had also sent legal notice to Opposite Parties dated 04.04.14 but Opposite Parties did not give reply. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainants have prayed to refund the amount of Rs. 90,000/- paid by the Complainant with interest @ 24 % p.a. and they have also prayed for further amount paid to the other hospitals due to gross medical negligence which amount to Rs. 5,00,000/-. They have further prayed for Rs. 4,00,000/- as mental harassment and Rs. 55,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 4

2. The Written statement was filed by Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and Opposite Party No.4 has adopted the written statement filed by Opposite Party No.1   and 2. It is stated by Opposite Parties that the complaint is baseless and false. It is admitted that Complainant No.2 was admitted in the Opposite Party hospital and on 03.01.14 the Complainant No.2 gave birth to two pre mature male babies. It is stated that it was a pre mature delivery and it was explained to the Complainants that pre mature delivery carries risk and complications. The written consent was obtained from the Complainants and they agreed for delivery of the babies. It is stated that the fundamental duty is to save the mother while performing the delivery in such a case. It is denied that the doctors of the Opposite Party hospital misguided the Complainants and thereafter recommended for immediate pre mature delivery. It is stated that at the time of admission of the Complainant No.2 in the hospital she was having 30 weeks twin pregnancy. The Opposite Parties have denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the case.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 4

3. The Complainants filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainants have denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and have reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainants

4. The Complainants in support of complaint filed their affidavits wherein they have supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 have filed their affidavits, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainants and Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 4. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainants is that Complainant No.2 was admitted on 02.01.14 in the hospital of Opposite Party. It is her case that on 03.01.14 she gave birth to two pre mature male babies. It is also her case that on midnight of 05.01.14 Opposite Party No.2 called the Complainant No.1 and asked them to immediately shift the newly born babies to some other well-facilitated hospital, on the pretext that the health of the children were deteriorating and was critical and thereafter Opposite Parties immediately discharged Complainant No.2. On 06.01.14 morning Opposite Party No.1 arranged ambulance and Complainants shifted their new born babies to other hospital. The Complainants stated that due to negligence of Opposite Party the older child out of twins suffered clotting and retention of water in the brain. As a result he had to undergo surgery. It is the case of the Complainants this happen due to the negligence of the doctors of Opposite Party. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have alleged that in the case of pre mature delivery the said type of risk can occur to the pre mature babies.
7.  Medial opinion was sought from UCMS and GTB hospital, Delhi. Two Opinions dated 13.10.21 were submitted by UCMS GTB hospital, Delhi. As per opinion of the Gynae Department there is no negligence on the part of Opposite Party hospital. The relevant part of the said opinion is reproduced as under:-

“As per copy of the discharge slip(C/26, C/27) condition of the mother at discharge was satisfactory. However, for neonatal condition at discharge, the opinion of the pediatrician needs to be sought.”

8. The Opinion of Pediatrics Department is as under:-

“2.Regarding the post-operative neonatal care in Nursery, as per the discharge summary of the mother (pg 27) and transfer summary of the babies twin 1 (pg 28) and twin 2 (pg 30) provided, babies were born preterm at 28 weeks gestation with birth weights of 1.315 kg( D/T of birth 03.01.14, 8:30 AM) and 915 grams (D/T of birth 03.01.14, 8:34 AM) babies were admitted in nursery and were given oxygen inhalation, intravenous fluids and intravenous antibiotics. Twin 1 was not able to maintain saturation on day 3 and was thus referred to level 3 care center for ventilatory support on 06.01.14. The management provided to the babies in immediate post-operative period as per records seems appropriate.

3.The transfer summary shows that twin 1 was …not maintaining oxygen saturation, and was thus transferred to Kailash Hospital. Twin 2 also showing fluctuating oxygen saturation and was thus transferred to kailash Hospital in view of anticipatory need for ventilatory support. There is no receiving note from Kailash hospital to say that babies were unstable.”

9. The Complainants did not lead any cogent evidence to prove medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore, keeping in view the above mentioned medical opinions, we do not find any case of medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.    
10. Order announced on 10.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President