Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1071

DR.NEELAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT.PREETI THAREJA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. PARAG KALE

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1071 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 03.03.2014 passed in C.C.No.226/2013 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

DR. NEELAM SINGH,

W/O SHRI MUKESH NARWARIA,

MEDICAL OFFICER, CIVIL HOSPITAL,

HAJIRA, GWALIOR

R/O HIG-200, MADHAV NAGAR, GWALIOR (MP)                                               ….           APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. SMT. PREETI THAREJA,

    W/O SHRI SACHIN THAREJA

    D/O SHRI K. G. NATHANI,

    R/O 386, TANSEN NAGAR,

    GWALIOR (M.P.)

 

2. AGRAWAL HOSPITAL & MATERNITY HOME,

    THROUGH DR. ANNAPURNA AGRAWAL,

    R/O LAKSHMANPURA KALARI,

    NEAR RAILWAY CROSSING, TANSEN NAGAR,

    PADAV, LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                          ….           RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :  ACTING PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK        :  MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondents.

 

                                               O R D E R

                                      (Passed on 01.10.2024)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                   This appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant Dr. Neelam Singh is directed against the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.226/2013, whereby the District Commission has

 

-2-

partly allowed the complainant filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant after completion of seven months of her pregnancy approached Civil Hospital, Hazira, Gwalior on 09.09.2011 for regular checkup where the opposite party no.1 Dr. Neelam Singh checked her and advised for blood test and ultrasonography. On getting ultrasound done, the expected date of delivery of child was told to her as 21.10.2011. Again on 22.09.2011 when she consulted the opposite party no.1-doctor she was told that there will be normal delivery. The doctor told her she that will do thorough checkup of her in Vinayak Hospital & Research Centre and therefore she went to aforesaid hospital on 23.09.2011 where the opposite party no.1-doctor after checkup gave her medical prescription. On advice of opposite party no.1-doctor, she got her checkup done in Sai Manglam Nursing Home Hospital, Tansen Road, Gwalior on 26.09.2011. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party no.1-doctor is doing private practice in the said hospital which belongs to Dr. Anli Kushwanshi. She also paid consultation fee of Rs.200/- to the opposite party no.1-doctor.

3.                It is further submitted by the complainant that on 11.10.2011, the opposite party no.1-doctor telephonically at around 8 am called her for checkup in opposite party no.2-hospital. She was not having any pain or

-3-

discomfort but the opposite party no.1 doctor prescribed gel Cerviprime on a paper which is used for the purpose of increasing pain. When the complainant's father told the doctor that due date has not yet come, the doctor told him that she knows more regarding when the delivery is going to happen. The opposite party no.2-doctor was also present there. It is alleged by the complainant that despite the fact that the delivery date was on 21.10.2011 the opposite party no.1-doctor delivered the child by operation on 11.10.2011 for which she paid Rs.25,000/- to the opposite parties, of which no receipt was given. It is alleged by the complainant that for want of money, the opposite party doctors did delivery, without any necessity for the same and finally discharged her on 14.10.2011.

4.                It is further alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties by performing surgery negligently shifted the right ovary to left side due to which she had stomachache but the opposite party no.1-doctor did not attend to the same. On 01.09.2012 when she consulted Dr. Achal Gupta, she was told that there is pus formation and due to accumulation of blood, there is formation of tumor. Dr. Achal Gupta after performing surgery drained out the pus and the dirty blood. It is alleged that ovarian cancer was detected for which she took treatment in Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai and spent Rs.8,00,000/- in her treatment. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a

-4-

complaint before the District Commission seeking financial losses of Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony, Rs.3,00,000/- as expenses for the future and Rs.7,500/- as costs of litigation, therefore a total sum of Rs.14,07,500/-.   

5.                The opposite party no.1-doctor in reply before the District Commission relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Martin F., D'souza Vs Mohd. Ishfaq 2009 (3) SCC 1 took a preliminary objection that no medical expert opinion was obtained, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the complainant's father K. G. Nathani has also complained to the Administrative Officers but did not produce the original prescription dated 23.09.2011, which he had fraudulently prepared. Denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it is submitted that the opposite party no.1 did not participate in delivery of the complainant. Dr. Sanjay Agrawal performed the surgery and as she did not participate in the surgery, the complaint filed against her be dismissed.

6.                     The opposite party no.2-doctor also denying the allegations made in the complaint submitted that with the consent of complainant and her father caesarian operation was performed by senior doctor Sanjay Agrawal. The complainant came in Fullterm Post Maturity Pregnancy condition and by evening her cervix was found fully dilated. Due to lack of 

-5-

head descent, the child was suffering and in such a situation, caesarean operation was necessary to save his life, which was therefore performed, only after taking consent from the complainant and her father. There has been no negligence in the said surgery. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

7.                The District Commission partly allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of 30 days failing which interest @ 8% p.a. is directed to be paid.  In addition, costs of Rs.1,200/- is also awarded.

8.                Heard.

9.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/appellant-doctor argued that in the present case, it is necessary to know about the exact date for delivery so that proper order could be passed. He argued that on an application filed by the opposite party no.2-doctor, medical expert opinion was obtained from B. I. M. R. Hospital, District-Gwalior on 23.01.2014 wherein the delivery date was mentioned as 07.10.2010, thus the caesarian operation performed on 11.10.2011 cannot be said to be performed before expected delivery date. The District Commission did not consider this important aspect. The District Commission has erred in not relying on the expert report. He argued that the complainant has alleged

-6-

that her right ovary was shifted to the left side, which is not possible medically. He argued that in the said report there is no such mention that post-operative complications had occurred due to the said caesarian operation, nor the complainant has produced any such evidence in that regard. The fact is that the complainant's father has been trying to extract Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party no.1/appellant. The District Commission has decided the complaint against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Martin F D'souza's case and has gravely erred. He also argued that neither the opposite party no.1-doctor checked the complainant nor treated or operated upon her in any of the hospitals. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

10.              The complainant has alleged that the opposite party no.1-doctor who is a doctor in the government hospital has unauthorisedly performed caesarian section for delivery of her child on 11.10.2011 in opposite party no.2 hospital before the expected delivery date i.e. 21.10.2011 for undue financial gains. She also alleged that due to negligence of the doctor in said surgery, she had to face further complications for which she again underwent surgery and further treatment. On the other hand, the opposite party no.1-doctor has denied the fact that she had ever treated the complainant.

-7-

11.              It is an admitted fact that the opposite party no.1-doctor is posted in Government Hospital, Gwalior and she is not authorized for private practice in any other nursing home. This fact is confirmed from the report dated 14.05.2012 of Chief Medical Officer (Exhibit C-20) addressed to the Collector, Gwalior wherein as per circular no. 25/971/Ve.Aa.Pra./98 dated 11/13.01.2019 of General Administration Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh it is stated that "Private practice can only be done after duty hours but there is no permission to do private practice in nursing home or private clinic". Thus it is clear that the opposite party no.1-doctor was not authorized to perform any surgery in the private nursing home. Also in the said report it is mentioned that the opposite party no.1-Dr. Neelam Singh apart from seeing the complainant in her clinic also inspected her in Sai Manglam Clinic and Agrawal Hospital which is violation of directions given in the circular.

12.              Before the District Commission learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-doctor argued that the doctor did not take part in surgery of the complainant, however, at the special request of complainant's father she remained present there on humanitarian ground. Exhibit C-4 is a prescription on letter head of opposite party no.1-doctor from which it is clear that the complainant visited the opposite party no.1-

 

-8-

doctor for consultation, thus the contention of the opposite party no.1-doctor that she never treated the complainant cannot be sustained.

13.              The complainant in her affidavit has stated that on the instructions of the opposite party no.1-doctor she reached the opposite party no.2-hospital on 11.10.2011 where opposite party no.1-doctor gave given prescriptions Exhibit C-6 & Exhibit C-7, and accordingly, the complainant's father brought Cerviprime gel. This fact was not controverted by the opposite party no.1-doctor in her affidavit. The opposite party no.1-doctor in her affidavit has also admitted that she went to Agrawal Hospital on 11.10.2011 on the special request of the complainant's father.

14.              The opposite parties contented that Dr. Sanjay Agrawal performed surgery, however, in the discharge summary there is no mention about it. Dr. Annapoorna Agrawal in Exhibit C-26 has admitted that the opposite party no.1-Dr.Neelam Singh injected the medicine in uterus of the complainant.

15.              Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the District Commission has rightly concluded that the opposite party no.1-doctor performed surgery despite the fact that she was not authorized to do so in a private nursing home. The District Commission also rightly concluded

 

-9-

that the complainant has failed to prove that further complications suffered by the complainant such as cancer are the result of earlier surgery performed by the opposite parties. In our considered view, the District Commission has rightly imposed a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the opposite parties to the complainant.

16.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

17.              As a result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.  

 

1. K.TIWARI)                             (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                   

               ACTING PRESIDENT                                 MEMBER