Haryana

StateCommission

A/148/2015

SUMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.MUKESH SEHRAWAT AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHOK K.SHARMA

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      148 of 2015

Date of Institution:      11.02.2015

Date of Decision :       25.04.2016

 

 Suman w/o Dinesh, Resident of Village Dariyaur, District Panipat.

 

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Dr. Mukesh Sehrawat, General Surgeon and Sonologist, Sehrawat Hospital, near Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, Safidon-126112.

2.      The United India Insurance Company Limited, Jind, through its Branch Manager, Jind.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               None for appellant.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             Shri P.S. Saini,  Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

None has appeared on behalf of the appellant for the last three consecutive hearings. Today also none has appeared for the appellant.  Therefore, we have proceeded to hear the respondent No.2 and dispose of the appeal after perusing record.

2.      This appeal has been preferred against the order dated November 27^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Suman-complainant/appellant, was dismissed.

3.      The appellant/complainant filed complaint stating that she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. She visited Civil Hospital, Safidon and was medically checked up by the doctor on duty vide Registration No.47128 dated 24.09.2010 in Out Patient Department. On 19.10.2010, she again visited the hospital. she was advised Ultrasound test. She got conducted ultrasound from Dr.Mukesh Sehrawat-Opposite Party/respondent No.1. After going through the report of the ultrasound examination, the doctor on duty in Civil Hospital, Safidon advised for delivery by way of (LSCS) operation and the same was done. The appellant gave birth to a male child but the child died after the operation.

4.      The respondent No.1 in his report opined under the heading Presentation “Breech” and under the heading Liquor Aminii “Adequate”. It was also reported that no evident foetal anomalies were seen at that stage whereas Dr.Manish Bansal, Surgeon, Community Health Centre (CHC), Safidon reported that both ears were absent, there was no liquor and the baby was having congenital malformation. The Surgeon, CHC, Safidon reported that the Intra Uternial Growth retarded meaning thereby the child in the uterus was weak. The opposite party No.1 reported that placenta posterior (UUS) whereas Dr. Manish Bansal, reported that the placenta was very small. It was alleged that the report given by the opposite party No.1 was wrong. Thus, alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service, the complainant filed complaint and sought compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

5.      The opposite party No.1 in his reply admitted that USG examination of the appellant was conducted. On radiological examination, everything was found normal except the heading presentation “Breech”. The respondent No.1 did not suggest for any surgery. The USG examination of the appellant was conducted as per set medical standards. Denying the allegations of the appellant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.      Opposite Party No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited, by placing reliance upon the reply of the opposite party No.1 prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint.

8.      It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 did not give any treatment to the appellant. The respondent No.1 only did USG examination and the report was given as per medical norms. The respondent No.1 did not advise for surgery to the appellant. No expert evidence has been produced by the appellant to establish any kind of medical negligence and deficiency in service. On the other hand, a Special Medical Board was constituted to examine the appellant. A meeting of the Board Members was fixed on March 6^th, 2012 at 10:30 A.M. in the office of Dr. Shalini Aggarwal, Assoc. Prof. Radio diagnosis & Chairperson of the Board of Pt. B.D. Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak but the appellant did not report before the above said Board. Thus, it is the appellant who did not cooperate in fair decision.

9.      Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, there is nothing on the record to suggest any medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

10.    Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

 

Announced 25.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL