BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.100/2013

DATED ON THIS THE 9^th December 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging negligence and deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization with cost and other reliefs.
2.      The complainant’s mother was undergoing regular check up and was following the advice and prescription of opposite party No.1.  The complainant was delivered at opposite party No.2 hospital.  The complainant was in critical condition as such, the complainant’s father shifted her to Apollo Hospital, Mysuru for neonatal care.  It was alleged that, the problem of “Asphyxia” was due to non-delivery of the complainant in time, and was due to lack of oxygen in womb.  The complainant was treated at J.S.S. Hospital, Mysuru, as there was no improvement in the health condition, she was shifted to Nimhans, Bangalore for further treatment.  Still there was no improvement in the health condition of the complainant.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party No.1 filed her version, later adopted the same by opposite party No.2 also, denying the alleging as false and submits the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and also mis-joinder of proper parties.  The opposite party No.1 admits the mother of the complainant was consulting her and was taking treatment during her pregnancy.  She denies the allegation of negligence in rendering service.  In fact, she has prescribed and provided necessary supplements to ease the delivery.  The opposite party No.1 admits the after normal delivery the complainant was not responding properly unlike other newly born babies, not crying and was also lethargic in its movements.  The opposite party No.1 noticed two loops of tight chord around the neck of the complainant, which has been suspected for the abnormal behaviour of the complainant and the same was called as “Birth Asthyxia”.  Hence, for better and immediate care, the opposite party No.1 adviced to shift the complainant to Apollo Hospital, Mysuru for “N.1.C.V .care”.  Therefore, submits, no lapses on her part and not liable to pay any compensation, hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.    To establish the facts, the complainant’s father lead his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on several documents.  The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not lead their evidence.  Both parties not filed the written arguments.  Both failed to address the arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant establishes the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not causing the delivery on time, due to which she suffered disability and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs?
3.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Do not call for discussion.

Point No.3 :-As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant being the child, born to Smt.Lakshmi, W/o Sri Mohan Kumar, pleaded that she suffered with disability, due to the negligence of opposite party No.1.  The complainant alleged that, opposite party No.1 delayed in attending to the delivery of her mother which resulted in lack of supply of oxygen to the baby in the womb, as such, she was lethargic. Despite of consultation with various doctors at reputed hospital, she never turned into a normal baby.
8.    The complainant being the baby born to Smt.Lakshmi, never become a Consumer of opposite parties.  As such, the complainant filed against the opposite parties not maintainable and liable to be dismissed without any compensation.  With the above observations, the  point No.1 is answered in the negative.   
9. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, point no.2 does not survive for consideration.
10. Point No.3:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. 
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 9^th December 2016)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER