Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/327/2015

Krishan Kumar s/o Umesh Beniwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Kusham Lata Jindal Jindal Nursing Home - Opp.Party(s)

Umesh Beniwal

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 327/2015

 

Krishan Kumar s/o Umesh Bainiwal r/o Kailash Nagar Post Mandavra Tehsil Hindaun, Distt. Karauli.

 

Vs.

 

Dr.Kusumlata Jindal, Jindal Nursing Home,Opp.Telephone Exchange, Hindaun, Distt. Karauli & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 28.10.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs.Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Rajkumar Tongawat counsel for the appellant

Mr.Ratnesh Yadav counsel for the respondents

 

 

2

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 7.1.2015 of the District Consumer Forum, Karauli by which the complaint of the appellant is dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that due to negligence of the respondents his wife has suffered loss and a dead child was delivered. The court below has dismissed his claim without any reason.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondents is that delivery never taken place in their Nursing Home. It was on the way when Renu the wife of the appellant was in the jeep and only placenta was attached to the child and no negligence has been done by the respondents.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the

impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

 

The only contention of the appellant is that inspite of their

 

3

 

 

evidence the court below has dismissed his complaint. As per facts of the case the appellant was in the treatment of the respondents since 12.5.2010 and on 7.6.2010 when they went to Nursing Home, she has been mishandled and due to negligence of the respondents a dead child has been born. All allegations have been repudiated by the respondents.

 

The admission ticket of 7.6.2010 is relevant to resolve the controversy. In the prescription dated 7.6.2010 the date of admission is 7.6.2010 at 8.45 a.m. and date of discharge is on the same day at 6.00 p.m. It means Renu was fit to be discharged on the same day and on 7.6.2010 in the prescription it has been specifically mentioned that an unborn child has been delivered on the way which fortified the contention of the respondent that Renu has delivered a dead child on the way and thereafter she has been brought to Nursing Home. Hence, the story of negligence of the respondent is rightly not been believed by the court below. The court below after scrutiny of the evidence had rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and the findings of the court below are recorded on the evidence

 

4

 

 

and there is no infirmity in the findings and reasons of the court below.

 

The appeal is meritless and liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm