Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/144/2016

Smt. Amrita Saini w/o Mahendar Kataria - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Ravi Agarwal Director Manu Hospital and Reasearch Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Manminder Singh

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 144/2016

 

Smt. Amrita Saini w/o Mahendra Kataria r/o Plot No. 4, Katariapuri Ram Nagar Sodala,Jaipur

Vs.

Dr.Ravi Agarwal, Director Manu Hospital & Research Centre, A-1 Shyam Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 29.2.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr,K.K.Bagri- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Namonarayan Sharma counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

 

2

 

 

learned DCF, Jaipur 2^nd dated 19.12.2015 whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed.

 

The short facts of the case are that on 4.12.2010 the appellant get seriously ill. She was pregnant . Sonography and other investigations have been done but her condition has been deteriorated, then she visited to Zanana Hospital and there the report shows that there was no stomach bubbles in the stomach but this fact has not been considered by the respondent. On 1.5.2011 she was admitted to Durlabhji Hospital where she delivered a dead premature child.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent was that she visited for advise and she was admitted to hospital on 22.4.2011. She has been asked full bed rest and thereafter she has been discharged. All reasonable care has been taken by the respondent but there was many complications in the pregnancy of the appellant as earlier there was a miscarriage in July 2010. It was found that she was suffering from Polyhydramnios and due to Premature Rupture of Membrance delivery was premature and as per medical science it was possible that a

 

3

 

dead child would be delivered in more than 50% of such type of cases. No negligence has been committed by the respondent.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment .

 

The contention of the appellant is that the doctor was negligent in treating the appellant but no specific contention has been raised about the fact that how the doctor was negligent and what necessary precautions he has not taken while treating the appellant.

 

It is true that the appellant has delivered a dead premature child but this will not raise presumption to the effect that it was due to negligence of the doctor. The court below has rightly held that it was a complicated case of pregnancy. Earlier in July 2010 the appellant has suffered miscarriage. Thereafter she has been advised for sonography and as per sonography report it was found that she is carrying two fetus out of which one was in the condition of vanishing and the position of the child in the uterus was in opposite direction. Reports of various hospitals also suggest that she was suffering from Polyhydramnios in

 

4

 

which level of Amniotic fluid in Amniotic Sac increases and percentage of death of child is much higher in these case. The court below has also considered the reports Anx. 7 to 9 in which there is a specific mention of the fact that appellant was suffering from Polyhydramnios and this is the main cause for premature delivery.

 

The whole basis of the case of the appellant is that in the report of government hospital no stomach bubbles were seen. The court below has also considered the fact that in case of Polyhydramnios in 10% cases stomach remains unvisible and in cases of Polyhydramnios it is possible that stomach bubbles may not appear or visualize and only on this ground it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the doctor in treating the appellant or he has not taken care which was reasonably expected from the respondent.

 

In view of the above the court below has considered the rival contentions and looking to the fact that it was a complicated pregnancy which resulted in the delivery of dead child as the appellant was suffering from Polyhydramnios. The appellant could not show any negligence on the part of the

 

5

 

 

respondent and rightly dismissed the complaint. No interference is needed and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm