BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 297 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 10.05.2013.
Date of Decision: 18.01.2019.
1. Poonam Bansal wife of Parveen Bansal,
2. Parveen Bansal son of Ghanshyam Dass Bansal,
Both residents of House No. 371, old Housing Board, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
….Complainants.
Versus
1. Dr. Vinod Anchal, Director Anchal Maternity & Nursing Home, Dinod Gate Chowk, Bhiwani.
2. Dr. Anita Anchal, Anchal Maternity & Nursing Home, Dinod Gate Chowk, Bhiwani.
3. Dr. Sanjeev, care of Anchal Maternity & Nursing Home, Dinod Gate Chowk, Bhiwani.
4. Dr. Inderjeet Arora, care of Anchal Maternity & Nursing Home, Dinod Gate Chowk, Bhiwani.
5. Anchal Maternity & Nursing Home, Dinod Gate Chowk, Bhiwani through its Director Dr. Vinod Anchal.
…Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Shri R. K. Gugnani, Advocate for the complainants.
Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER: -
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainants in brief, is that they are parent of Subham (since deceased). It is alleged that the complainant Poonam Bansal became pregnant after marriage and it was her first pregnancy. It is further alleged that on 15.1.2013 Poonam Bansal went to Anchal Maternity & Nursing Home, Dinod Gate Chowk, Bhiwani in noon time at about 3.00 p.m. for routine check up and Dr. Anita Anchal checked up Poonam Bansla and told that everything is normal and normal delivery would take place and further told that the delivery is expected today itself and asked her to admit in Anchal Maternity & Nursing Home. It is further alleged that OP No. 1 & 2 assured that their Nursing Home is equipped with latest machines for delivery and they are qualified Gynecologist to perform every operation of delivery and gave guarantee that there would be no problem and normal delivery would take place. It is further alleged that on believing the assurance of OP No. 1 & 2 complainant Poonam was admitted in their Nursing Home and deposited the charges. It is further alleged that at the time of admission Poonam was not suffering from any labour pain and after admission she was given injections for labour pain. It is further alleged that after half an hour complainant Parveen Bansal was told by OP No. 1 & 2 that Caesarean operation could be performed immediately and asked to deposit more money for operation, anesthesia charges etc. and same was paid by complainant No.2. It is further alleged that after some time complainant No. 2 was told that condition of Poonam has deteriorated and OP No. 4 Dr. Inderjeet Arora to be called and they asked to deposit more money and accordingly he deposited the same. It is further alleged that OP No. 1 to 4 told that Poonam has given birth to healthy male child and the mother and child both are alright and there was no problem of any kind. It is further alleged that child was shown to Parveen Bansal & family members and at that child was crying and oxygen was given to him and the child was continuously weeping and at that time size of head of child was enlarged. It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 told that something wrong has happened and he was unable to understand it and in the morning he advised the complainant No. 2 to get the child admitted in Verma Children Hospital, Bhiwani and on this they got admitted the child in Verma Nursing Home on 16.1.2013, where Dr. Verma told that there was swelling in the brain and lungs of the child and some mistake has been committed by Doctor who done the operation at the time of delivery and he further told that the condition of child was serious and there were less chances of his survival. It is further alleged that at 11.00 a.m. Parveen Bansal was told that condition of child has became more serious and child was put on ventilator and Dr. Verma advised the complainant Parveen Bansal to take the child to some big Hospital. It is further alleged that the child was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in a ambulance having team of two doctors & other staff fitted with ventilator and doctors at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital told that no proper delivery/operation had taken place at Bhiwani and it resulted into serious condition of child and due to negligence of Doctor, brain of child has damaged. It is further alleged that child remained admitted their w.e.f. 17.1.2013 to 12.2.2013 and after discharge remained under continuous treatment of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and of Dr. N. K. Garg, child Specialist, Bhiwani. It is further alleged that due to negligence of OPs, life of son of complainants has spoiled. It is further alleged that the child was remained under treatment of various doctors, but could not cured. It is further alleged that on 27.11.2013 due to serious condition child was admitted in Sarvodaya Multispecialty Hospital, Hisar, but his condition became very serious and he was referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi on 1.12.2013, but in the way he died. It is further alleged that the complainants lateron came to know that the OP No. 1 & 2 are B.A. M.S. doctors and they projected themselves as well qualified and competent Gynecologist and thus they cheated the complainants. It is further alleged that the complainants had to incur huge amount on the treatment of their child in various hospitals due to negligency of the OPs. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, they have to file the present complaint.
2. OP No.1 & 5 on appearance filed contested written statement alleging therein that they are well equipped for LSCS and various other surgeries and treatments and Hospital is approved by government of Haryana for tubectomy and vasectomy operations and the approval are granted after proper inspection of hospital and facilities. It is further alleged that 40-50 deliveries (including 10-15 LSCS) are being carried out in the hospital every month. It is further alleged that OP No. 4 Dr. Inder Jeet Arora, who performed the present case LSCS is a well qualified and experienced surgeon and doing such surgeries since last 20 years and has performed more than 1000s operations. It is further alleged that the OP No. 3 Dr. Sanjeev Garg is also a well qualified and experienced Anesthetist having experience of about 9 years. It is further alleged that complainant No. 1 came with complaint of pain abdomen since two hours with history of 9 months amenorrhea and after examination she was admitted in the hospital with labour pain for delivery. It is further alleged that monitoring of the complainant No.1 was done at regular intervals. It is further alleged that no injection for labour pain was given to complainant No. 1, however, standard medical treatment was given to her as per requirement. It is further alleged that complainant No. 1 was taken to labour room at about 11.00 pm on 15.1.2013 due to fully dilatation of cervis and membrane rupture. It is further alleged that it was found that baby was stuck due to deep transverse arrest and then patient and her attendants were informed that LSCS will be required for the delivery and consent of complainant No. 2 was taken before starting of LSCS. It is denied that Dr. Anita Anchal started the operation for delivery. It is further alleged that LSCS of the complainant was started by OP No. 4, who was present in the hospital for another operation. It is further alleged that the LSCS of patient was done by OP No. 3 & 4 with the assistance and in presence of required doctors and the condition of the patient was stable during the LSCS. It is further alleged that no negligence was made during the treatment. It is further alleged that child was crying well at the time of birth and was handed over to complainant No. 2 & his family members and no oxygen was given to baby. It is further alleged that baby was referred as per standard medical norms. Hence, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. On notice OP No.2 appeared and filed its reply denying the allegations of the complainant, on the same footings as filed by OP No.1 & 5 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. On notice OP No.3 appeared and filed its reply denying the allegations of the complainant, on the same footings as filed by OP No.1 & 5 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
5. On notice OP No.4 appeared and filed its reply denying the allegations of the complainant, on the same footings as filed by OP No.1 & 5 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
6. Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record certain documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-23 in his evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.
7. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record Annexure R1 to R4 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.
9. During the pendency of the case the matter was referred to the medical board, PGIMS, Chandigarh vide order dated 16.8.2017. The medical board has submitted its report. The board has opined that the documents provided are insufficient to come to final conclusion. So kindly provide the complete original records for the above mentioned parameters. The detail of every moment of the treatment (treatment history) is available with the OPs, so the OPs being the concerned party were directed to provide the complete original record to the medical board, but the OPs have intentionally & deliberately not supplied the same due to the reasons best known to them. Moreover, from the perusal of prayer of complaint, it transpires that complainants have prayed for award of compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/-, whereas this District Forum is having the pecuniary jurisdiction only to the extent of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Thus, on this score also the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances and having gone through the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the ld. counsel for the complainants has committed a very big mistake while amending the complaint by demanding Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation and we are of the view that due to the mistake committed by the counsel, the party may not suffer. Thus liberty is given to the complainants to take recourse of law before the competent court of law/Authority/Tribunal for their claim, as per the provisions of law, if so advised and this dismissal would not come in the way and complainants may seek exclusion of time under section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engg. Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 18-01-2019.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
