BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 678 of 2013

Date of Institution: 07.10.2013

Date of Decision: 30.12.2015

Mrs.Radha Thakur wife of Mr.Arun Thakur, resident of H.No.106-A, Gali No.10, New Pawan Nagar B/S Celebration Mall, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Dr.Shorey’s Nursing Home, 2, Shivala Bhaiyan Road, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Principal Officer.  
2. Dr.(Mrs) Avinash Shorey C/O Dr.Shorey’s Nursing Home, 2, Shivala Bhaiyan Road, Amritsar.
3. Amritsar Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Amritsar, Sewa Samiti Pharmacy Building, Opp. Andh Vidyalaya, Durgiana Road, Amritsar through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Administrator/ Principle Officer.
4. Dr.A.S.Virk C/O Amritsar Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Amritsar, Sewa Samiti Pharmacy Building, Opp. Andh Vidayalaya, Durgiana Road, Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate

              For Opposite Parties  No.3 and 4: Sh.R.C.Gupta/ Sh.Khushwant Pal Singh, Advocates.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1.           Present complaint has been filed by Mrs.Radha Thakur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she was pregnant and got her treatment and children delivery from Opposite Party No.1 under the direct treatment of Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Party No.3 is running a Ultra Sound Scan Centre and the Opposite Party No.4 is a radiologist who conducted the ultra sound scan on the advice of  Opposite Party No.2 from Opposite Party No.3 by Opposite Party No.4 on 12.10.2012 for valuable consideration. Complainant got pregnant and was under the care and treatment of Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1 Hospital  and on the advice of Opposite Party No.3 by Opposite Party No.4 who claimed to be qualified M.D.Radiologist, radio diagnosis was done on 12.10.2015 after taking due consideration amount and the report given by the Opposite Parties  No.3 and 4 which is reproduced as under:-

ULTRA SOUND STUDY OF  F.W.B.                                                                                                                                                      *        Gravid uterus  shows Twin live embryo in separate amniotic sacs at the time of examination.

*        Mean G.age is about: -06 weeks 5 days.

*        Expected date of delivery: 2.6.13.

*        Cardiac & somatic activities are normal.

 *       Amniotic Fluid is adequate

*        Os is closed.

IMPRESSION: ON GOING 06 WEEKS 5 DAYS TWIN PREGNANCY (BIAMNIOTIC)

So, going by the said report and after physical/ clinic check up by Opposite Party No.2, advised the complainant and her husband that she was going to deliver  twin babies as she was carrying two babies in her womb and continued her treatment. Complainant alleges that   she took all precautions and care as advised by Opposite Party No.2 from time to time and followed up with Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. Complainant further alleges that on 26.4.2013 i.e. in the 8^th month of pregnancy of the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 re-confirmed that the complainant was having twin pregnancy and due to low Hb level advised two units of blood infusion to the complainant, which was infused at Opposite Party No.1 hospital by Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the complainant as advised to get admitted with Opposite Party No.1, by Opposite Party No.2 on 27.5.2013 for the delivery by way of caesarian section. The complainant got herself admitted in Opposite Party No.1 Hospital for the delivery on 27.5.2013  and surgery of caesarean section was carried out on the complainant on 28.5.2013 by Opposite Party No.2. But only one female baby was handed over to the complainant. When the complainant and her husband asked for second baby, Opposite Party No.2 said that there was only one baby delivered by the complainant. However, Opposite Party No.2 could not give satisfactory reply regarding second baby and gave excuses to make enquiry and investigation in the matter and to inform the complainant. Complainant further submitted that Opposite Parties  No.1 and 2 have charged Rs.16,100/- from the complainant besides visiting fee. Complainant further submitted that she and her husband were regularly visiting Opposite Parties  No.1 and 2 demanding second baby as it was diagnosed by Opposite Party No.4 in Opposite Party No.3-Clinic that the complainant was carrying twin babies in her womb vide report dated 12.10.2012 (Ex.C3), but Opposite Parties  neither delivered second baby to the complainant nor put forward any explanation for doing so.       Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.19.50 lacs to the complainant jointly and severally. Litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that for the first time, the complainant visited the OPD of Opposite Party No.1 Hospital on 22.10.2012 and gave history of last date of  menstrual periods on 21.8.2012 and as per that, the expected date of delivery was 28.5.2013.    The complainant was already having ultra sound report Ex.C3 with her which suggested twin pregnancy and she was already in ante-natal treatment for this pregnancy from some other doctor. The complainant reported pain  lower abdomen, with slight bleeding per vaginum for which she was already on treatment but reported no relief. She also gave previous history of two abortions at six weeks pregnancy each, both times, Opposite Party No.2 advised the patient appropriate treatment alongwith explaining the risk due to vaginal  bleeding & pain lower abdomen and in view of previous 2 abortions, she was advised  to continue with the same treatment which she was already taking from her previous doctor and she was advised complete rest. Thereafter, the complainant came to Opposite Party No.2 in follow up on 25.10.2012, 3.11.2012, 31.12.2012 and 5.1.2013. On 5.1.2013 when she was examined, single foetal heart beat was appreciated with foetal Doppler which patient was made to hear. It was explained to the patient that since  one foetal heart sound was heard with Doppler, so repeat ultrasound be got done to confirm the status of twin pregnancy at that time, but the patient as well as her attendants flatly refused under the pretext that in the previous pregnancies they had been getting repeated ultra sounds done, but ultimately she landed up in miscarriages and this time they were not going to get repeated ultra sound scans done as they were having full faith in treatment otherwise being given by Opposite Party No.2. The note of refusal was endorsed on the ante natal slip, which has been concealed by the patient with malafide intention. On each subsequent visit, single heart beat presumably for singleton pregnancy was made to be heard on Doppler to the patient as well as her attendants and further on examination, the height of uterus corresponding to the date (rather than over distended uterus as in twin pregnancy single cephalic presentation with floating head was always told to the patient as well as her attendants. The patient came further on 6.2.2013, 6.3.2013, 6.4.2013 and then she came on 26.4.2013 when she was diagnosed to be having severe anemia, for which she was given proper treatment, including 2 units of blood advised and given in two  days. The patient  came on 27.5.2013 at full term (38 weeks) when ultra sound examination was again advised, which was refused, thus, she was admitted at registration No. 16 for caesarean section. After taking consent of her husband after explaining him everything, the patient  was taken for elective caesarean section in the morning of 28.5.2013, wherein under spinal anesthesia given by Dr.K.K.Sharma, MBBS, MD (Anaesthesia) in the fully equipped aseptic operation theatre of Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. The surgery was done by Opposite Party No.2, wherein lower segment cesarean section was done. During the surgery, alive over-healthy female child (3.150 kg) was extracted. The patient as well as attendants were immediately informed of the birth of single baby in otherwise twin pregnancy diagnosis at early stage, and possible reasons thereof. It was only due to the competency,  sincerity and  dedication of Opposite Party No.2 in giving proper ante-natal treatment that the patient reached full term pregnancy and ultimately delivered successfully, despite history of two miscarriages and threatened  abortion this time as well. The reduction of early twin pregnancy to single foetus would have been confirmed, if the patient and her attendants had agreed to get ultra sound repeated during continuing pregnancy. The endorsement of this fact of refusal of getting ultra sound repeated in third trimester of pregnancy as well as find mention in the patient’s record file prepared at the time of admission of the patient in Opposite Party No.1 hospital on 27.5.2013. Answering Opposite Parties further stated that in twin pregnancy,  relative weight of the babies is much less (than single baby at the same gestation period) and in case of  cephalopelvic presentation of 1^st twin, mostly head size is appropriate for average pelvis and thus gestation of cephalopelvic disproportion does not arise. Twin pregnancy ends up before 38 weeks of pregnancy and rarely ever reaches the full term period. This patient’s due date was 28.5.2013 and single baby was delivered by elective cesarean section on 28^th May, 2013 only. Post operative period was smooth, uneventful and the patient as well as baby were discharged from the hospital on 31.5.2013 with proper discharge card. The patient came in follow up for removal of stitches on 10^th day of operation, and then in further follow up after 3 months of delivery. Till then, the patient or  her relatives did not show any dissatisfaction with regard to the ante-natal treatment as well as delivery or treatment thereafter,  and rather they were thankful to the God this time as well as to Opposite Party No.2 for inspite of two miscarriages earlier and early symptoms of threatened abortion this  time as well, with treatment of  Opposite Party No.2, the pregnancy progressed to full term and the patient delivered a over healthy baby without any complication in the delivery as well. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Parties No.3 and 4  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complaint against  the answering Opposite Parties  is not maintainable as no negligence much less the same has been attributed against the replying Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.4 is qualified Radiologist with qualification of M.D. in Radio diagnosis with an experience of more than 18 years, in the field of Radio-diagnosis, and as such Opposite Party No.4 is an expert/ specialist in the field of Radio-diagnosis. It is stated that the ultra sound study of FWB of the complainant revealed at the time of examination that her Gravid Uterus shows twin live embryos in separate amniotic sacs, mean  G. age about 06 weeks 5 days with expected delivery date as  2.6.2013, cardiac and somatic activities normal, amniotic fluid adequate and 0s closed. Accordingly, the record was maintained in accordance with law. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8  and affidavit of Sh.Arun Thakur Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2  tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.K.K.Sharma, MBBS, Ex.OP1,2/1, affidavit of Vijay, OT technician Ex.OP1,2/2, affidavit of Mamta wife of Vijay, OP Helper Ex.OP1,2/3, affidavit of Dr.Avinash Shorey ExOp1,2/4, affidavit of Dr.Madhu Nagpal Ex.OP1,2/5 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/6 and Ex.OP1,2/7, additional affidavit of Dr.Avinash Shorey Ex.OP1,2/8 evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Similarly, Opposite Party No.4 tendered affidavit Dr.A.S.Virk Ex.OP4/1 alongwith record Ex.OP4/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties  No.3 and 4.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant got conducted ultra sound from Opposite Parties  No.3 and 4 on 12.10.2012 on the advice of Opposite Party No.2 as the complainant was pregnant and was under the care and treatment of Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Said report dated 12.10.2012 gave impression “ On going 06 weeks 5 days twin pregnancy (Biamniotic)”. After going through said report dated 12.10.2012 (Ex.C3), film (Ex.C4) and after physical and  clinical check up, Opposite Party No.2 advised the complainant that the complainant is going to deliver twin babies, so she should continue her treatment. The complainant submitted that she took all precautions and care as advised by Opposite Party No.2 from time to time and followed up with Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. Complainant further submitted that on 26.4.2013 i.e. in the 8^th month of pregnancy of the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 re-confirmed that the complainant is having twin pregnancy and due to low Hb level advised two units of blood infusion to the complainant, which was infused at Opposite Party No.1 hospital by Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the complainant was advised to admit with Opposite Party No.1, by Opposite Party No.2 on 27.5.2013 for the delivery by way of caesarian section. Resultantly, the complainant got herself admitted in Opposite Party No.1 Hospital for the delivery on 27.5.2013  and surgery of caesarean section was carried out on the complainant on 28.5.2013 by Opposite Party No.2. But only one female baby was handed over to the complainant. When the complainant and her husband asked for second baby, Opposite Party No.2 said that there was only one baby delivered by the complainant. However, Opposite Party No.2 could not give satisfactory reply regarding second baby and gave excuses to make enquiry and investigation in the matter and to inform the complainant. Complainant further submitted that Opposite Parties  No.1 and 2 have charged Rs.16,100/- from the complainant besides visiting fee. Complainant further submitted that she and her husband were regularly visiting Opposite Parties  No.1 and 2 demanding second baby as it was diagnosed by Opposite Party No.4 in Opposite Party No.3-Clinic that the complainant was carrying twin babies in her womb vide report dated 12.10.2012 (Ex.C3), but Opposite Parties  neither delivered second baby to the complainant nor could put forward any explanation.      Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency and medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. \
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is that patient Mrs.Radha, complainant came to Opposite Party No.2 in OPD for the first time on 22.10.2012 and gave history of last date menstrual periods on 21.8.2012. So, as per that history expected date of delivery was 28.5.2013. She was already having ultra sound report Ex.C3 with her which suggested twin pregnancy and she was already in ante-natal treatment for this pregnancy from some other doctor. The complainant reported pain  lower abdomen, with slight bleeding per vaginum for which she was already on treatment but reported no relief. She also gave previous history of two inevitable abortions at six weeks pregnancy each, both times, Opposite Party No.2 advised the patient appropriate treatment alongwith explaining the risk due to vaginal  bleeding & pain lower abdomen and in view of previous 2 abortions, she was advised  to continue with the same treatment which she was already taking from her previous doctor and she was advised complete rest. Thereafter, the complainant came to Opposite Party No.2 in follow up on 25.10.2012, 3.11.2012, 31.12.2012 and 5.1.2013. On 5.1.2013 when she was examined, single foetal heart beat was appreciated with foetal Doppler which the patient was made to hear. It was explained to the patient that since  one foetal heart sound was heard with Doppler, so repeat ultrasound be got done to confirm the status of twin pregnancy at that time, but the patient as well as her attendants flatly refused under the pretext that in the previous pregnancies they had been getting repeated ultra sounds done, but ultimately she landed up in missed abortions and this time they were not going to get repeated ultra sound scans done as they were having full faith in treatment otherwise being given by Opposite Party No.2. The note of refusal was endorsed on the ante natal slip, which has been concealed by the patient with malafide intention. On each subsequent  visit, single heart beat presumably for singleton pregnancy was made to be heard on Doppler to the patient as well as her attendants and further on examination, the height of uterus corresponding to the date (rather than over distended uterus as in twin pregnancy single cephalic presentation with floating head was always told to the patient as well as her attendants. Thereafter, the complainant came to the opposite party No.2 on 6.3.2013, 6.4.2013 and then she came on 26.4.2013 when she was diagnosed to be having severe anemia for which 2 units of blood were given to the complainant in 2 days. Thereafter, complainant came to opposite party No.2 for ante natal consultation on 23.5.2013 and then came on 27.5.2013 at full term ( 38 weeks ). Complainant was again advised ultrasound examination but she refused to do so. However, she was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital for caesarean section and after taking consent from her husband and after explaining all the facts, surgery on the patient was conducted by opposite party No.2 on 28.5.2013 and during the surgery, alive over healthy female child weighing 3.150 Kg was extracted. The patient and her attendants were immediately informed regarding birth of single female baby. However, twin pregnancy was diagnosed at earlier stage. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 further submitted that due to competency, sincerity and dedication of the opposite party No.2 in giving proper ante natal treatment, the patient reached full term pregnancy and ultimately delivered successfully despite history of two miscarriages and threatened abortion this time as well. Reduction of early twin pregnancy to single foetus would have been confirmed had the patient and her attendants agreed to get ultrasound repeated during continuing pregnancy. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 further submitted that in case of twin pregnancy, relative weight of babies is much less (than single baby at the same gestation period) and in case of cephalopelvic presentation of 1^st twin, mostly head size is appropriate for average pelvis and thus gestation of cephalopelvic disproportion does not arise. Twin pregnancy ends up before 38 weeks of pregnancy and rarely ever reaches to full term period. Whereas this patient had due date of delivery 28.5.2013 and single baby was delivered by elective cesarean section on 28.5.2013. Post operative period was also smooth, uneventful and the patient as well as baby were discharged from the hospital on 31.5.2013 with proper discharge card. Even thereafter, the complainant came for follow up for removal of stitches on 10^th day of operation and then in further follow up after 3 months of delivery. Till then, the patient or her relatives did not show any dissatisfaction with regard to the ante natal treatment as well as delivery or treatment thereafter nor they ever raised any query regarding second baby as well as by the complainant in the present complaint. Opposite parties No.1 & 2  further submitted that the patient should rather thankful to God this time as well as opposite party No.2 for inspite of two miscarriages earlier and early symptoms of threatened abortion this time as well, with treatment of opposite party No.2, the pregnancy progressed to full term and the patient delivered a over healthy baby without any complication in the delivery as well.  Ld.counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got conducted ultrasound from opposite party No.4 at opposite party No.3 Amritsar Sewa Samiti on 12.10.2012. As per ultrasound report of the complainant from opposite party No.3 dated 12.10.2012 ex. C-3, the patient was carrying 6 weeks and 5 days twin pregnancy (Biamniotic ). Complainant approached opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.1 hospital with report of pain in lower abdomen with slight bleeding per vaginum for which she was already on treatment but reported no relief, who after going through said report ex.C-3 and film ex.C-4 and after physical check up advised the complainant that she has twin pregnancy, so, she should continue her treatment. She was asked to take all precautions and she was advised complete bed rest because the complainant had history of two inevitable abortions at six weeks pregnancy each, both times. Thereafter, complainant came to opposite party No.2 in follow up on 25.10.2012, 3.11.2012, 31.12.2012 and on 5.1.2013 as per patient’s record ex.OP1,2/6. As per the history sheet of the patient produced by the opposite parties ex.OP1,2/6, on 5.1.2013, when the complainant was examined, single foetal heart beat was appreciated with foetal Doppler, which the patient was made to hear. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that patient was explained that since one foetal heart sound was heard with Doppler, so, repeat ultrasound be got done to confirm the status of twin pregnancy at that time but the complainant as well as her attendants flatly refused under the pretext that in the previous pregnancies, she had been getting repeated ultrasounds done but ultimately complainant landed up in inevitable abortions and this time, they were not going to get repeated ultrasound scans done. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their written version have  stated that a note of refusal was endorsed on the ante natal slip which was in possession of the complainant but the same was concealed by the patient/complainant. This fact has been mentioned by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their written version but even then complainant did not either refuted this allegation of concealment of ante natal slip on which note of refusal was recorded nor produced by the complainant nor any such ante natal slip was produced by the complainant nor complainant has put forward any explanation in the court. Even on each subsequent visit, opposite parties No.1 & 2 alleges that single heart beat presumably for singleton pregnancy was made to be heard on Doppler to the patient and her attendants and further on examination, the height of uterus corresponding to the date ( rather than over distended uterus as in case of twin pregnancy ) single cephalic presentation with floating head was always told to the patient as well as her attendants. The patient further came to the opposite party No.2 on 6.2.2013, 6.3.2013 and 6.4.2013 and thereafter the patient came to the opposite party No.2 on 26.4.2013 when she was diagnosed to be having severe anemia for which she was given proper treatment including 2 units of blood were advised and given in two days. Complainant came to the opposite party No.2 subsequently on 23.5.2013 for last antenatal consultation and then on 27.5.2013 at full term ( 38 weeks ). On all these dates, the patient attended OPD of opposite party No.2 and was not admitted to opposite party No. 1 hospital during this period. So, medical prescription slips are supposed to be in the possession of the complainant but the complainant did not produce those prescription slips in this Forum nor put the same on record of this Forum’s file in evidence. So, it cannot be said that the complainant has produced all the relevant documents before this Forum to find out the version of the opposite party No.2 that she advised the complainant repeat ultrasound to confirm twin pregnancy as on 5.1.2013, no heart beat of second foetus was heard. Patient  then approached opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.1 hospital on 27.5.2013 on full term ( 38 weeks ) and she was admitted in the hospital of opposite party No.1 hospital for cesarean section and after taking consent of the husband of the complainant and after explaining him everything, surgery was done by opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.1 hospital under anesthesia given by Dr.K.K.Sharma, M.B.B.S., M.D., (Anesthesia ). During this surgery, alive good healthy female baby weighing 3.150 Kg.was extracted and this fact was informed to the patient as well as her attendants. As per the record produced by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 ex.OP1,2/7, operation record dated 28.5.2013, the complainant gave birth to single female alive child and not twin babies. Baby was weighing 3.150 Kg at the time of birth. So, from this record, it is clear that complainant gave birth to a single alive, good healthy, female child weighing 3.150 Kg and not to twin babies. As per medical literature regarding pregnancy, twin babies are generally delivered pre maturely but in this case, the complainant gave birth to female child in full time ( 38 weeks ) on the expected date of delivery i.e.28.5.2013. Further, twin babies at the time of birth generally are under weight but the complainant gave birth to a good healthy female child weighing 3.150 Kg. As such, it cannot be even presumed that complainant would have given birth to twin babies on 28.5.2013. Moreover, operation note on caesarean section ex.OP1,2/7 fully proves that complainant gave birth to a single alive good healthy female child and there is no iota of evidence on the operation note of the complainant ex.OP1,2/7 that she gave birth to twin babies. Had the complainant given birth to two babies and she was handed over only one baby, why the complainant did not make hue and cry on the same day and why the complainant or her attendants did not lodge any complaint with the police or hospital authorities or to Civil Surgeon controlling the private hospitals in the District. Rather the complainant remained admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital on 29.5.2013 and 30.5.2013 as is evident from the record of the hospital produced by the opposite party No.2 ex.OP1,2/7 and also approached opposite party No.2 thereafter for follow up but did not raise any demand of second baby. Complainant also examined Dr.Madhu Nagpal, M.D., (Gyane and Obs.), Ex. Professor & Head, Govt.Medical College, Amritsar, presently Professor & Head, Sri  Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar who deposed that she had gone through the entire medical treatment file of the complainant at opposite party No.1 hospital. Patient had history of two previous abortions and this time, she had already received treatment at Dhruv Hospital prior to treatment at opposite party No.1 hospital from opposite party No.2. Complainant had also possessed ultrasound report dated 12.10.2012 which revealed twin live embryo of 6 weeks 5 days gestation age and ultrasonography was advised on 5.1.2013 at 16-18 weeks of pregnancy which was refused by the patient as per record shown to this witness where it is mentioned that  ? FHS heard  (1^st refusal ). Patient revisited the opposite parties on 6.12.2013 when it was clearly mentioned that pregnancy was about 20 weeks, one FHS heard and 2^nd FHS ???  On subsequent visit on 6.3.2013 also, one FHS was good and 2^nd ??? at 24-26 week size. An ultrasonography  advised for clinical examination of 32-34 weeks with one foetus in vertex position with good FHS, was also refused by the patient ( 2^nd refusal as per record ).  This witness came to the conclusion that pregnancy in this case started as twin gestation as per single ultrasonography dated 12.10.2012 at 6 weeks 5 days gestation.  Further subsequently it was a singleton pregnancy. The phenomenon of vanishing twin syndrome is a well documented mishap of Twin Pregnancy in 1^st Trimester whereas one of the twins is aborted, autolysed and the other one continues to grow normally. Ultrasonography is the only evidence to claim the well being of survivor twin in 2^nd trimester and afterwards.  Ultrasonography in second trimester would have clarified the whole scene but the patient’s attendants refused to get the ultrasonography in second trimester and thereafter, present case seems to be that  of vanishing twin syndrome. The survivor foetus out of twin behaved like singleton pregnancy and all the parameters grow like singleton pregnancy. So, in this case, a single baby was delivered at caesarean section. She further deposed that treatment given by opposite party No.2 in this case i.e.ante natal treatment as well as delivery by way of caesarean section and post delivery treatment was on standard line. This witness also confirmed the averments of opposite parties No.1 & 2 that in twin pregnancy, relative weight of the babies is much less than single baby at the same gestation period. Twin pregnancy mostly ends before 38 weeks of pregnancy and rarely ever reached full term. Many a times, in twin pregnancy one of the foetus aborts of its own and the other continues with the progress of pregnancy and delivers one healthy/over healthy baby, as in this case . In this regard, opposite parties No.1 & 2 also examined one Vijay through his affidavit ex.OP1,2/2 and Mamta vide her affidavit ex.OP1,2/3 who were present at the time of surgery of caesarean section of the complainant. They also deposed that during this surgery, only one alive over healthy female child weighing 3.150 Kg was extracted.
10. However, the complainant has produced medical prescription slip dated 26.4.2013 ex.C-5 written by opposite party No.2 on which opposite party No.2 has written diagnosis of twin pregnancy as a result of physical verification and not as a result of ultrasound or clinical tests which was the only proper test of existing facts. But opposite party No.2 could not produce any written document to prove that she pressed the complainant to get repeat ultrasound rather wrote on this prescription slip ex.C-5 still continues twin pregnancy. So, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are negligent in informing the complainant about the actual facts. If the complainant hesitated to get repeat ultrasound done, opposite parties No.1 & 2 should have taken/recorded it in writing from the complainant or the opposite parties No.1 & 2 should have refused for further treatment of the complainant medically because in case of twin pregnancy it was necessary to find out what has happened to the second foetus. Without ultrasound or other advanced clinical tests, it cannot be said as to what happened to the second foetus. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 should have written on medical record at the time of admission of the patient i.e.on 27.5.2013 that complainant has not got ultrasound done despite advice given by opposite party No.2 and at the time of surgery i.e. caesarean section on 28.5.2013 of the complainant, opposite party No.2 should have mentioned clearly in the operation notes that only one female child has been delivered by the complainant and second baby was neither in existence nor delivered by the complainant. So, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are guilty to that extent in not properly informing the complainant and not properly following line of action of medical treatment after it was brought to the notice of the complainant on 5.1.2013 that heart beat of second baby was not heard and the complainant was advised to undergo repeat ultrasound but the complainant refused to do so and in that case, said note should have been given by the opposite party No.2 in this regard on record or opposite parties No.1 & 2 should have refused the complainant to treat her further because in twin pregnancy cases, treating doctor i.e.medical practitioner should be over cautious and should have given special care in such case, when first ultrasound at six weeks and five days of pregnancy, it came to light that complainant had twin pregnancy. So, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are guilty of deficiency of service in not properly informing the complainant and properly following the line of action in the treatment of the complainant. As such, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complainant to this extent.
11. Consequently, we dispose of this complaint with directions to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay compensation  Rs.20000/- for deficiency of service in not taking the case of the complainant on proper line of action and for taking the case of the complainant casually. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

                                                            ( BHUPINDER SINGH )

President

                                                          ( KULWANT KAUR BAJWA )

                                                                              Member