Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/182

Sandeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Siri Ram Hospita - Opp.Party(s)

Anjali Goyal

15 Nov 2021

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          182 of 2019

Date of Institution :     26.07.2019

Date of Decision :        15.11.2021

Sandeep Kaur aged about 22 years, wife of Sukhwant Singh resident of near Kameana Gate, Ambedkar Nagar, Faridkot.

                                    .....Complainant

Versus

1. Siri Ram Hospital, Kamiana Gate, Faridkot (Throught its concerned/authorized person/s).
2. Dr. Parveen Kumar Gupta at Dr. Siri Ram Hospital, Kamiana Gate, Faridkot.
3.  Anita Gupta at Dr. Siri Ram Hospital, Kamiana Gate, Faridkot.                                                 ...............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                    (Now Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt. Parampal Kaur, Member,

          Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

cc no. 182 of 2019

Present:       Ms Anjali Goyal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Narinder Kumar, Ld Counsel for OPs,

ORDER

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

 

                                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs. Four lacs as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, financial loss and mental agony suffered by her and her family.

2                                         Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that complainant was in family way and when she was having pregnancy of more than eight weeks, she approached Ops for ultrasound to ensure the well being of her child on 09.05.2019. Ops charged Rs.800/-that is more than the regular market price for ultrasound and thereafter, gave report dated 09.05.2019 that foetus/child in the womb is no more alive and Heart Rate is not visible and foetal cardiac activity and foetal movements are not detected. They also gave report ‘Missed Abortion’ and also advised

cc no. 182 of 2019

abortion from their hospital as soon as possible within two days. Complainant and her husband were shocked to know about the report. It also saddened their all family members and even neighbours started coming their home for condolences. On advice of one of their neighbour, complainant alongwith her husband approached another doctor on 11.05.2019, who after general checkup of complainant, advised her fresh ultrasound. Complainant again got conducted her ultrasound from Dr. Prithipal Memorial Hospital. Doctor gave report that everything was normal and there was live foetus of eight weeks and 5 days with cardiac activity positive. It is submitted that Ops gave wrong report intentionally with malafide intention to extract money from complainant on the pretext of abortion or it is a gross case of medical negligence on the part of Ops. They failed to exercise reasonable degree of care and skill at the time of  performing USG and in preparing report, which caused huge mental agony, harassment and financial loss to complainant and her family. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation for

cc no. 182 of 2019

inconvenience, harassment, mental agony suffered by her besides cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

3                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                        On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. It is averred that lengthy evidence is required in this case that cannot be possible in the summary procedure of Consumer Commission and present compliant is required to be referred to civil court for proper adjudication. It is further averred that it is not maintainable as complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and moreover, complainant does not come under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. There is no trade mal practice or deficiency in service on the part of Ops. However, on merits Ops have denied all the

cc no. 182 of 2019

allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and brought before the Commission that complainant did not approach OP-2 with her husband, rather she was accompanied by one trained Dai Amar Kaur with complaint of non clearance of foetus despite consumption of absorption pills from one Gurjant Singh alias Janta. Charging of  extra amount from complainant is also denied as answering Ops charged amount of Rs.800/- as per norms of hospital and as per market rate. Complainant has presented the complaint by distorting the facts. It is brought before the Commission that when complainant approached them, she disclosed that she had consumed abortion tablets as she was already having two children and she wanted ultrasound to see whether foetus still remains there or nor more. Complainant did not want to continue the pregnancy and had taken those pills for removal of same. It was a case of consumption of abortion tablets and such results do appear in close proximity of taking such medicine and when effects of such medicine start subsiding, the result of ultrasound also varies. Ultrasound of complainant was conducted and report was given ‘Missed Abortion’ that means she had

cc no. 182 of 2019

missed abortion and it was observed that heart beat of the foetus was not visible and she was advised to take second opinion or rescan after time gap as ultrasound conducted by OP-2 was in close proximity of taking abortion pills and result thereof may vary after subsiding effect of said tablets. She was advised re-scan after few days and thus, there was no question of suggesting abortion. Moreover, when Op-2 refused to do any procedure for abortion, complainant approached some other doctor. It is further averred that ultrasound is a science of shadows and there is every chance of inaccuracy. It is not 100% accurate. No procedure or operation should be done solely on the basis of ultrasound report and even ultrasound report is not valid for medico legal purpose, courts, police department and as evidence. It is further denied that complainant approached Op-3 and 4 for any treatment, rather she never visited them for any treatment or medicine. Moreover, OP-3 is an old lady of more than 80 years, who has given up the practice and OP-3 and 4 have nothing to do with the ultrasound conducted and report thereof. No shock or harassment is caused to complainant as she herself did not want to continue the pregnancy and for the purpose of

cc no. 182 of 2019

removing the foetus, she consumed said abortion tablets. Complainant has levelled false allegations on Ops and even claim sought by her is exaggerated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                                        Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant  Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sukhwant Singh Ex CW-2 and documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-9 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                               Ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr Baljit Kaur Ex OP-A, report of civil hospital, Kotkapura Ex OP-B and folio dated 11.05.20219 Ex OP-C and documents Ex OP-2/1 to Ex OP-17 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                        We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as ld counsel for opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents placed on the record by respective parties.

 

cc no. 182 of 2019

8                                      It is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant was in family way and she got conducted her ultrasound from Ops to know about the well being of her child. Doctor charged her more price than the market rate and gave report that child in the womb is not alive with no heart rate and foetal cardiac activity. It reported ‘missed abortion’ and advised to have abortion from their hospital within two days. Complainant and her family were shocked to know about this, but on advice of someone, complainant again got conducted her ultrasound from Dr. Pirthi Pal Memorial Hospital, Kotkapura that gave report that cardiac activity positive and it was normal intrauterine pregnancy of 9 wks 2days. Act and conduct of Ops in giving false report amounts to deficiency in service and it has caused huge harassment to complainant. There is gross negligence on the part of Ops in conducting and studying the report of Ultrasound. On the contrary, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and sternly denied that there is any medical negligence on their part. OPs revealed this Commission through their documents and affidavits that story put forward by complainant is

 

cc no. 182 of 2019

concocted one and asserted that complainant already had two  children, she did not want to have another baby. She approached OP-2 alongwith one midwife namely Amar Kaur and told that she had missed her periods. She took abortion pills from a chemist due to which she was having bleeding but no products fell out. After conducting ultrasound OPs reported that pregnancy was 8 wks 1day, but heart and foetal movements were not visible and advised rescan after few days. OPs never advised for abortion as their hospital has not been carrying out abortion services for long time. Complainant has levelled false allegations upon them .

9                                    Bare perusal of ultrasound report dated 09.05.2019 Ex OP-2/3 clearly shows the fact that gestational age of foetus is 8 weeks and one day, Heart rate is not visible and foetal cardiac activity and foetal movements are not detected with result ‘Missed Abortion’.

10                                          Affidavit of Dr. Baljit Kaur Gynaecologist Ex OP-A narrates story different from the one presented by

                                

                                 cc no. 182 of 2019

complainant as it is mentioned therein that complainant approached Dr Baljit on 11.05.2019 and told her that she is already having two children and to get rid of present pregnancy, she took MTP kit from and unqualified person due to which bleeding started but no product fell out. She came for antenatal checkup and was advised re scan to confirm diagnosis. She studied the Ultrasound Report given by OP-2 that showed single foetus of 8+/-1 and its report was ‘missed abortion’ and no heard beat and foetal movements were seen. Complainant got conducted another ultrasound from Dr. Pirthipal Memorial Hospital, Kotkapura that showed normal intrauterine pregnancy of 9 weeks and two days with heart just positive. Neither Dr Baljit nor previous doctor advised any termination of pregnancy procedure to her. Dr Baljit opined that variation in opinion on the basis of ultrasound reports is as per medical science relating to sonography and it was natural.

11                                       Careful perusal of affidavit of AmarKaur midwife Ex OP-2 clearly states that story put forward by complainant is concocted one. It is clearly mentioned in it that complainant did not

 

cc no. 182 of 2019

want to continue her pregnancy and therefore, to terminate the same, she consumed abortion tablets due to which bleeding started but no product came out. Said Amar Kaur also stated therein that she accompanied complainant for visiting the hospital of Ops for getting done the ultrasound, report thereof stated that foetus is inside, but there is no movement of it. It is a case of 50:50 missed abortion. There are 50% chances of its success and 50 % chances of termination are also possible. Ex Op-3 photograph of complainant alongwith Amar Kaur midwife captured through cc camera of Ops hospital, is also available on record that denied the story of complainant that she went to the hospital of Ops alongwith  her husband.

12                                            In the light of above discussion and documents placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Taking into consideration the affidavit Ex OP-1/A given by Dr Baljit Gynaecologist, there does not remain an iota of doubt that complainant

 

 

cc no. 182 of 2019

herself consumed MTP kit for removal of said pregnancy as she did not want to have another child. Affidavit of Amar Kaur midwife Ex OP-2/2 also proves the fact that complainant did not want to continue with said pregnancy and to get rid of same, she used the abortion tablets and she went to hospital of OP-2 with complaint of non clearance of foetus as bleeding started due to intake of said pills but no product fell out. Allegation of complainant that OP-2 gave wrong report has no legs to stand upon as  due to  effect of intake of those MTP pills, report of ultrasound was different. Even on said report doctor has mentioned ‘missed abortion’. Though no cardiac activity or movement was visible but they gave correct report that pregnancy was 8 weeks and 1 day. Moreover, complainant did not approach OP-2 to know about the well being of her foetus, rather she went to hospital for removal of unwanted foetus. Allegations levelled by complainant are totally baseless and she has miserably failed to prove her case. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.

 

cc no. 182 of 2019

Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced on

Dated: 15.11.2021

(Vishav Kant Garg)                   (Param Pal Kaur)                                         Member                                                 Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complaint No. :   182 of 2019

Sandeep Kaur     Vs    Siri Ram Hospital

 

Present:       Ms Anjali Goyal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Narinder Kumar, Ld Counsel for OPs,

 Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced on

Dated: 15.11.2021

 

(Vishav Kant Garg)                   (Param Pal Kaur)                                         Member                                                 Member