BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.6/12.

Date of instt.: 03.01.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 04.05.2015.

Anuradha wife of Sh. Pardeep Verma & D/o Sh. Krishan Lal, resident of Village Ramthali, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Dr. Mrs. Ravinder Sood C/o Sood Maternity & Infertility Hospital, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Kaithal through its Branch Manager. 

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Ranbir Rana, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. S.K.Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Sh. C.S.Gupta, Adv. for Op No.2.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for Op No.3. 

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 26.04.2011, the complainant along with her mother came to the clinic of Op No.1 for check-up, who after examination and pregnancy test told that the complainant has pregnant and also advised to get regular treatment under the supervision of Op No.1.  It is alleged that since 26.04.2011 till the delivery of child, the complainant got treatment under the supervision of Op No.1 and paid the prescribed fee of Op No.1 regularly on each visit.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 after going through the report of ultrasound and other examination given the due date for delivery of child to the complainant on 19.10.2011.  It is further alleged that on 18.10.2011 a day before the due date of delivery, the complainant got admitted with the clinic of Op No.1 and remained admitted there till the time of delivery on 19.10.2011.  It is further alleged that the Op No.1 administered some injections on the pretext that it will enhance the labour pain but despite less labour pain of complainant, the Op No.1 brought the complainant in labour room on 19.10.2011.  It is further alleged that after sometimes, the Op No.1 gave 3 or 4 injections to the complainant and informed the mother and other relatives of complainant that as there arose complications in normal delivery, hence, operation is necessary which should be done immediately.  It is further alleged that after operation, the complainant became unconscious for about 6 hours and during this period, the Op No.1 gave many injections to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the relatives of complainant met with the Op No.1 misbehaved with them and seeing the bad condition of complainant also pressurized them to write that “Complainant is suffering from fit/dora disease and hence for better treatment, we shifted the complainant to Patiala”.  It is further alleged that without handling the worst situation of complainant, the Op No.1 pressurized the relatives to shift the complainant to some other good hospital.  It is further alleged that the complainant was admitted in emergency at PGI Chandigarh on the same day i.e. on 19.10.2011.  It is further alleged that the doctors anyhow controlled/saved the life of complainant and told that the condition of complainant has became worst only because of over dosage of medicines and negligently handling the operation.  It is further alleged that the condition of complainant worsen only because of the negligence of the Op No.1, who even operated without any proper surgeon team, without any (M.S.) decree handling the complainant negligently which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant fled after taking all the medical record of the hospital of the Op No.1 of her treatment and other record without disclosing to anybody and immediately a DDR was entered in the Police Station City Kaithal bearing No.15(A) dt. 30.12.2011.  Hence, the complainant committed the offence of theft of the records of the hospital of Op No.1; that the complainant was admitted on 18.10.2011 and the case of complainant was of the pregnancy with post-maturity and induction was done and after awaiting for sufficient time for normal delivery for 24 hours, the undersigned to her best of wisdom and experience told the patient and her relatives for lower segment caesarian section due to obstructed labour and after completing of the required test, caesarian was successfully done at about 5.00 a.m. with the consent of the applicant and the consent letter was duly signed by the complainant and thereafter a baby was born at 5.14 a.m. without any problem.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act and thus the complainant is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum against the answering Op; that the concerned doctor has treated the complainant with utmost due diligence and care in consonance with standard medical norms as required in the given circumstances; that the Op No.1 has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of policy as enshrined therein including giving written notice to the company/answering respondent regarding the alleged mishap and receipt of summon etc. from the forum which is pre-requisite to be complied with by the concerned doctor/insured under the terms of the policy.  Thus, the answering Op is not liable to indemnify the concerned doctor on this count too, although the same is disputed and denied on merits also.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.     

4.     Op No.3 also filed the written statement on the same line as of Ops No.1 & 2 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

6.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

7.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 26.04.2011, the complainant along with her mother came to the clinic of Op No.1 for check-up, who after examination and pregnancy test told that the complainant has pregnant and also advised to get regular treatment under the supervision of Op No.1.  On 18.10.2011 a day before the due date of delivery, the complainant got admitted with the clinic of Op No.1 and remained admitted there till the time of delivery on 19.10.2011.  The Op No.1 administered some injections on the pretext that it will enhance the labour pain but despite less labour pain of complainant, the Op No.1 brought the complainant in labour room on 19.10.2011.  After sometimes, the Op No.1 gave 3 or 4 injections to the complainant and informed the mother and other relatives of complainant that as there arose complications in normal delivery, hence, operation is necessary which should be done immediately.  After operation, the complainant became unconscious for about 6 hours and during this period, the Op No.1 gave many injections to the complainant.  At last, the Op No.1 pressurized the relatives to shift the complainant to some other good hospital.  The complainant was admitted in emergency at PGI Chandigarh on the same day i.e. on 19.10.2011.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 contends that the complainant was admitted on 18.10.2011 and the case of complainant was of pregnancy with post-maturity and induction was done and after awaiting for sufficient time for normal delivery for 24 hours, the Op No.1 to her best of wisdom and experience told the patient and her relatives for lower segment caesarian section due to obstructed labour and after completing of the required test, caesarian was successfully done at about 5.00 a.m. with the consent of the complainant and the consent letter was duly signed by the complainant and thereafter a baby was born at 5.14 a.m. without any problem.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also contends that the Op No.1 is fully competent to perform the surgery and has even worked as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Kaithal for the period September, 1987 to March, 1991 and during the said period, the OP No.1 being Medical Officer independently performed caesarian related to the gynae and obstetrics successfully and with her utmost skill and experience and apart from it, the Op No.1 was approved for the purpose of M.T.P. Act, 1971 under rule 4 and sub rule 6 vide FW-2003/304 dt. 19.06.2013 by Civil Surgeon, Kaithal.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 contends that the complainant fled after taking all the medical record of the hospital of the Op No.1 of her treatment and other record without disclosing to anybody and the matter was reported to the Police Station City, Kaithal and even a DDR was entered in the Police Station City, Kaithal bearing No.15(A) dt. 30.12.2011.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 also placed the copy of Daily Station Diary (Ex.R1/B) on record.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the condition of complainant has became worst only because of over dosage of medicines and negligently handling the operation.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed copy of discharge & follow-up card issued by Govt. Medical College Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh (Ex.C2), wherein it has been mentioned in the case summary as under:-

        P1L1 on POD-O c Edampsia

had 2 episode of GTC beizures

H/o upulling of eyeballs,

        protrusion of tongue.

        No tongue bill. 

No H/o urine/stool maintenance.

  Delivered a LB/Girl/3.5Kg./5.14 a.m./19.10.2011

 ISCS at private hospital.

 P.P.-Spontaneous conception  LHP-11.01.2011.

 UPT 10 d overdue

 uneventful. 

        T1T2 reveled

FC/CA taken

So, on perusal of said case summary, it is crystal clear that the doctor 10 d overdue instead of overdose.  So, this plea of complainant is not tenable in the eyes of law.  The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant reported as G.Sukumar Vs. Bodiga Dasharatha (Dr.) & others, 2007(2) CPJ page 496 (Andhra Pradesh State Commission) and Parijatha Hospital & others Vs. B.Radhika, 2011(2) CPJ page 524 (Andhra Pradesh State Commission) are not applicable to the present case because the facts of these authorities are almost different form the instant case.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

9.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.04.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.