Delhi

North East

CC/69/2019

Ms. Meenu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Rajinder Prasad - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2022

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. 69/19

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Meenu W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar, R/p H.No. F 71/5, Gali No. 3, Subhash Vihar, Bhajanpura, Delhi-11053	Complainant
	Versus
	Dr. Rajinder Prasad (Ultrasonologist) At: Jindal Medicare & Ultrasound Centre, B-3/194, Yamuna Vihar, Near Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

01.07.2019 01.09.2022 19.12.2022

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

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

Case of the Complainant

1.  The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant undergone last menstruation period on 10.11.2018 but in the coming month i.e. December 2018, the menstruation period did not occur to the complainant. The Complainant visited the lady doctor and doctor suggested to go for ultrasound of whole abdomen to confirm the pregnancy. On 30.12.2018, the Complainant along with her husband visited the ultrasound centre of the Opposite Party for her ultrasound. Opposite Party conducted her ultrasound and gave a report that Adenexae and Ovaries left and right that ovaries are normal in size, shape and echotexture. NO T.O (mass) lesion seen. Then the Complainant was free mind and became sure that she is not pregnant but she was having pain in her abdomen and as feeling some uneasiness in daily life. The Complainant got doubt as she did not occur the menstruation period in the month of January and February 2019 then again the Complainant visited to Dr. Deepa who apprised that the Complainant is pregnant and she suggested the Complainant immediately go for Ultrasound and the Complainant got her Ultrasound n 02.03.2019 through Dr. Pradeep Somani, MD and after getting the report of Ultrasound, the Complainant was shocked to know that the Complainant is pregnant of 16-17 weeks and in this period the Complainant health condition was not in position to abort the womb child as the pregnancy of 16-17 weeks now the Complainant is in very trauma condition because she had already undergone through two major operations at the time of her two previous deliveries. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party and asked him that why he had done such wrong deed with the Complainant on which the Opposite party never apologies his mistake and misbehaved with the Complainant. The Complainant sent legal demand notice dated 16.03.2019 through her counsel to the Opposite Party for the redressal of her grievances and demanded the whole expenditure of this pregnancy and delivery amounting to Rs. 2 lacs and also demanded Rs. 15 lacs as future expenses for new baby till his/her attaining the age of 18 years. The Complainant also make responsible the Opposite Party for any mis-happening with the Complainant during the pregnancy or delivery of child. But despite receiving the notice, the Opposite Party till date neither replied the notice nor make any contact with the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay the whole expenditure of Complainant’s pregnancy and delivery amounting to Rs. 2 lacs and also direct the Opposite party to pay Rs. 15 lacs as future expenses for new baby till his/her attaining the age of 18 years, to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for causing mental, tension and agony and Rs. 30,000/- on account of litigation charges.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the OP to contest the case despite service of notice served on 28.08.2019. Therefore, OP proceeded against ex-party vide order dated 18.12.2019.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Counsel for Complainant. We also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant undergone last menstruation period on 10.11.2018 but in the coming month i.e. December 2018, the menstruation period did not occur to the complainant. The Complainant visited the lady doctor and doctor suggested to go for ultrasound of whole abdomen to confirm the pregnancy. On 30.12.2018, the Complainant along with her husband visited the ultrasound centre of the Opposite Party for her ultrasound. Opposite Party conducted her ultrasound and gave a report that Adenexae and Ovaries left and right that ovaries are normal in size, shape and echotexture. NO T.O (mass) lesion seen. The Complainant got doubt as she did not occur the menstruation period in the month of January and February 2019 then again the Complainant visited to Dr. Deepa who apprised that the Complainant is pregnant and she suggested the Complainant immediately go for Ultrasound and the Complainant got her Ultrasound n 02.03.2019 through Dr. Pradeep Somani, MD and after getting the report of Ultrasound, the Complainant was shocked to know that the Complainant is pregnant of 16-17 weeks and in this period the Complainant health condition was not in position to abort the womb child as the pregnancy of 16-17 weeks now. As per complainant, due to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party for not providing accurate diagnose of her pregnancy, she suffered unwanted pregnancy for that he asked for compensation and medical expenditure of unwanted pregnancy and future expenses of new baby.
5. As per complaint, Complainant went to the Opposite Party for ultrasound on advice of lady doctor. Complainant did not produce prescription of lady doctor neither with her complaint nor during the evidence. Even, the ultrasound report dated 30.12.2018 given by the Opposite Party is clearly mentioned that “This report is a professional opinion & not the final Diagnosis. USG findings should be clinically co-related/interpreted & further appropriate investigations are advised for confirmation, which are given on the slip, supplied separately.”  After receiving the report of ultrasound Complainant did not visit any doctor till March 2019.
6. In our considered view, there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and we did not see any ground to admit this complaint. Hence, the complaint is dismissed accordingly.
7. Order announced on 19.12.2022.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President