BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.359 of 2014

Date of Instt. 17.10.2014

Date of Decision :15.07.2015

Sunita Sharma aged about 33 years wife of Karan Sharma R/o NC-305, Kot Krishan Chand, Hoshiarpur Phatak, Jalandhar (Pb.)

..........Complainant Versus

1. Dr.Harjinder Kaur, OBST & Gynaecologist, C/o Kumar Maternity Home & Ultrasound Scanning Centre, 136, Bhai Ditt Singh Nagar, Opposite Hari Palace (Near Car Wali Kothi), Jalandhar City.

2. Dr.RK Mahindru, C/o Mahindru Ultrasound Scanning Centre, Jalandhar (Pb).

3. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 32, GT Road, Opp.Narinder Cinema, Jalandhar City (Pb), through its Manager/Principal Officer.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Gurinder Arora Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Rajiv Garg Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Anil Kalia Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Sh.Brijesh Bakshi Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a married woman and is aged about 33 years and is residing at aforesaid address. On 2.7.2014 the complainant, expecting pregnancy, approached to opposite party No.1 for her check up where the opposite party No.1 did the check up of the complainant and advised the complainant for urine test for pregnancy and also advised for scanning for check up of Ectopic Pregnancy. The opposite party No.1 referred the complainant to opposite party No.2 for her ultrasound scanning and for said checkup. Thereafter as per the advise and reference of the opposite party No.1, the complainant approached to opposite party No.2 for her ultrasound scanning on the same day i.e on 2.7.2014 where the ultrasound scanning of the complainant was done by opposite party No.2 and the report of the U/S Scan (TUS) of the complainant was given by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant. In the said report it was clearly mentioned that there is no intrauterine pregnancy and opinion was also given that the uterus is normal. Thereafter on 6.7.2014 all of a sudden the complainant got severe pain in her lower abdomen and the complainant was immediately taken to the hospital namely Sacred Heart Hospital at Maqsudan, GT Road, Jalandhar by her husband where the medical checkup of the complainant was done by Dr.Pinky Elizabeth of the said hospital and on the reference of Dr.Pinky Elizabeth the USG of Pelvis (to rule out Ectopic Pregnancy) was done on 6.7.2014 by Dr.Rajeev Miglani, MD, Consultant Radiologist of Sacred Heart Hospital and in the report the impression was given that there is "Mixed Echogenecity Mass Right Adnexal Region with G.Sac & Moderate haemoperitoneum S/o Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy", meaning thereby that there was ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy of the complainant. As the pregnancy of the complainant was ruptured due to the said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant was admitted in critical situation in the said Sacred Heart Hospital on 6.7.2014 where the medical treatment of the complainant was done and even anaesthesia was given to the complainant. The complainant remained admitted there from 6.7.2014 till 14.7.2014. Due to the deficiency of services made by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and due to the said acts of negligence of the opposite parties No.1 & 2, the pregnancy of the complainant got terminated and the complainant suffered from severe pain, great mental agony, botheration and the complainant remained admitted for seven days in the hospital and the expenditure on the treatment of the complainant was of about Rs.70,000/-. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay her Rs.70,000/- on account of medical expenses and she has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite party for checkup on 2.7.2014and the answering opposite party checked the complainant properly and advised the complainant for urine test and advised her for scanning for Ectopic Pregnancy. It is further wrong that opposite party No.1 had referred the complainant to opposite party No.2 for ultra scanning. It is wrong that there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.1.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.2 pleaded that it is denied that for the purpose of ultrasound scanning, opposite party No.1 had referred the complainant specifically to opposite party No.2. Contents of ultrasound scanning report given by opposite party No.2 are matter of record. There can be no "rupture" of pregnancy as alleged. In any case, opposite party No.2 has not done any act which could lead to such a situation. There is no deficiency of service by opposite party No.2. It is further denied that pregnancy of complainant was terminated or that she suffered in any way as alleged due to any act on the part of opposite party No.2. The entire complaint is baseless and misconceived. The fact of the matter is that complainant was later on diagnosed with having ectopic pregnancy as is made out from the prescription slip of opposite party No.1 as well as from her subsequent medical record. Ectopic means in an abnormal place or position, and Ectropic Pregnancy means a pregnancy occurring outside the womb. In a normal pregnancy, the female ovary which produces egg, release an egg into the Fallopian Tube. If the egg is fertilized, i.e if it meets with the male sperm, the fertilized egg moves into the uterus to attach to the endometrial lining, and continue for next 9 months. But in some cases, the fertilized egg stays in the Fallopian Tube and does not move into the uterine cavity, and, in that case, it is called Ectopic Pregnancy or Tubal Pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy can not usually be detected in ultrasound scanning in large percentage of patients. The findings of ultrasound scanning are very variable depending upon the timing of presentation of patient. It is pertinent to submit that in the case of complainant when she presented for ultrasound scanning, she did not have any symptoms like pain, bleeding, nausea or vomiting. EV Scanning does not permit a confident diagnosis of Ectopic Pregnancy in many cases. Many of ectopic gestations present with no ultrasound findings whatsoever, that is to say that images are those of normal, non-pregnant pelvis with no evidence of masses, fluid collection or other adnexal abnormalities. As such, the ultrasound scanning report of the complainant, given by opposite party No.2 dated 2.7.2014 is correct. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.3 pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.3 and it is not a necessary party in the present complaint as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Without admitting any liability it is submitted that the opposite party No.3 has insured the opposite party No.2 vide policy No.233100/48/2014/912 for the period 8.11.2013 to 7.11.2013 under the Professional Indemnity Policy for doctors for indemnifying the insured in claims arising out of bodily injury and/or death of any patient caused by or alleged to have been caused by error. Omission or negligence in professional services rendered or which should have been rendered by the insured. In the present case, there is no error, omission or negligence on the part of the insured viz a viz risk covered and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

5. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C23 and evidence of complainant was closed by order.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered document Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/7 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP3/A and closed evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. It is not disputed that complainant who is married woman expecting pregnancy approached to opposite party No.1for checkup on 2.7.2014 and according to the own version of the complainant opposite party No.1 advised her for urine test for pregnancy and also for scanning for checkup of Ectopic Pregnancy. The prescription slip given by opposite party No.1 is on record. As per prescription also opposite party has advised scanning for Ectopic Pregnancy. The complainant went to opposite party No.2 for ultrasound and opposite party No.2 after scanning gave report Ex.C1 which is as under:-

"U/S Scan Report (TUS).

UTERUS:- The uterus is anteverted. It measures around 5.7 cm X 3.5 cm X 3.9 cm in size. The myometrium is uniform to echoes. The endometrial echoes are normal. There is no intrauterine pregnancy or SOL in it.

ADENEXA:- Appears normal. There is no adnexal mass or fluid in the Cul-De-Sac.

Opinion:- Normal Uterus/Adnexa".

9. Ultrasound scanning report is also dated 2.7.2014. Counsel for the complainant contended that opposite parties No.1 and 2 failed to detect Ectopic Pregnancy. He further contended that report given by opposite party No.2 that there was no pregnancy is wrong and constitute deficiency in service as well as medical negligence. He further contended that on 6.7.2014 all of a sudden, complainant suffered severe pain in her lower abdomen and she was taken to Sacred Heart Hospital at Maqsudan, GT Road, Jalandhar where after ultrasound scan ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy was detected. Ex.C2 is report of above said hospital in this regard. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 contended that opposite party No.1 has advised the complainant for ultrasound scan to detect Ectopic Pregnancy on 2.7.2014 but thereafter she never turned up. He contended that no negligence or deficiency in service on part of opposite party No.1 can be attributed. We have carefully considered the above contention advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 It is in the affidavit Ex.OP1/A of opposite party No.1 that she advised the complainant for further test on 2.7.2014 but she had never approached her again. In the complaint also the complainant has not mentioned that after ultrasound scan by opposite party No.2, she went to opposite party No.1 with the report for further opinion or treatment. So in these circumstances, no deficiency in service or medical negligence can be attributed on part of opposite party No.1. So far as, opposite party No.2 is concerned, he has done the ultrasound scanning and has given the above said report opining that there was no pregnancy. In the present case, in fact the complainant was having Ectopic Pregnancy. In her affidavit Ex.OP1/A, opposite party No.1 has explained Ectopic Pregnancy. It is in her affidavit that "it is however, pertinent to mentioned that normally pregnancy occurs in tube and transfer to uterine cavity (place of growth for new life), but if conception (union of male sperm and female (egg) orum) occur in a wrong place outside uterus in the tube it is called ectopic pregnancy. Pregnancy at wrong place in the tube-tube is thin-walled and not expandable with the growth of foetus/embryo and ruptures with passage of time, patient may present with pain and bleeding". So Ectopic Pregnancy is not normal pregnancy. It take place outside the uterus in Fallopian Tube. Opposite party No.2 has also explained Ectopic Pregnancy in his affidavit Ex.OP2/A. It is further in his affidavit that Ectopic Pregnancy can not usually be detected in ultrasound scan. As per medical literature also repeated ultrasound scanning is required to detect Ectopic Pregnancy. Ex.OP2/6 is medical literature in this regard. It provides as under:-

The "Negative" Pelvic Sonogram

"At times, sonography will be performed to "rule out" ectopic pregnancy, and all of the anatomy will appear normal. The differential diagnosis in such a patient is normal early pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, and ectopic pregnancy. Including ectopic pregnancy in the differential diagnosis is important, since 15%-35% of ectopic pregnancies will not demonstrate an identifiable extrauterine mass at transvaginal sonography (17,21,22). Among patients with ectopic pregnancy, 5%-18% of cases are detected or confidently diagnosed only at repeat sonography 923). Therefore, in any pregnant patient in whom neither an IUP nor ectopic pregnancy is visualized, follow-up is needed". The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that from the images of sonography done by opposite party ectopic pregnancy was visible or could be detected. As already observed above for detecting Ectopic Pregnancy in any patient without complaint of any pain in the abdomen or bleeding invariably repeated ultrasound scanning and follow-ups are required. The complainant never visited opposite party No.1 for further opinion or opposite party No.2 for repeated sonography. So in the above circumstances, no medical negligence or deficiency in service on part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 can be attributed.

10. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.07.2015 Member Member President