Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/349/2020

Smt. Anjali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Indira IVF Hospital Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.M. Tripathi

15 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/349/2023
Date of Institution	:	1.2.2023
Date of Decision	:	15/12/2023

 

1. Smt. Anjali W/o Sh. Suraj Kumar R/o H. No.110, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.
2. Sh. Suraj Kumar S/o Sh. Rohtash, r/o H. No.110, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. The Indira IVF Hospital Private Limited through its Director/Head, Dr. Nitasha Gupta, SCO No.156 to 159, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
2. Dr. Nitasha Gupta, Head of the Indira IVF Hospital Private Limited SCO No.156 to 159, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited Office of 195, Soti Sunj, Merrut, Uttar Pradesh 250001.
4. The Oriental India Insurance Company Limited having Divisional office at 346, Khair Naga, opposite filmistan  Cinema, Merrut, Uttar Pardesh-250002.

 .  … Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate for complainants.
	:	Sh. Sumit Dua, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh, Advocate for OP No.3 (defence of OP No.3 already struck off vide order dated 22.6.2023)
	:	Sh. Krishan Kant, Advocate for OP No.4.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainants  impressed with the advertisement given by the OPs approached to them for embryo  transfer  under the package of Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.  The Ops had treated the complainant for about four months and they followed each and every instructions given by the OPs and the OPs had given 100% surety of success. It is alleged that despite paying more than 1,50,000/- to the OPs on different dates towards the treatment the complainants could not get any relief. Therefore, the  complainants served a show cause notice upon the Ops but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainants were clearly informed about the procedure and  techniques of Embryo transfer and possible success rate of embryo  transfer  which is a part of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) duration treatment and an estimate of expenses payable to the answering OPs  exclusive of medicines and after being fully satisfied, the complainants decided to go for embryo transfer thereafter. It is submitted that the success rate for embryo transfer is variable and can’t be 100% as it depends upon lot many factors still good number of patients get successful in first attempt itself while some require more than one treatment. It is denied that  the answering OPs have given a package of Rs.80,000/- to 1,00,000/- for full and final process of embryo transfer. It is averred that charges for embryo transfer and embryo preservation are separate and both are payable by patients  and as such Rs.30,000/- were  charged  for embryo preservation  which was payable by the complainants.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.4 in its reply stated that OP No.1 is insured by  the answering OP  subject to terms and conditions of the policy upto Rs.10,00,000/-  and OP No.1 has to lodge a formal claim with OP No.4 and thereafter the same shall be considered by OP No.4 as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that as no case of medical negligence has been made out on the part of OP No.1&2, hence, the answering OP being insurer of OP No.1 is not liable and thus the complainant qua OP No.1 and  the answering OP is liable to be rejected.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. Through the present complaint the complainants have alleged that they have wrongly/illegally/arbitrarily  been charged amount of Rs.95,000/- for the embryo transfer and further the OPs No.1&2 again cheated them by charging amount of Rs.30,000/- for the preservation of embryo. It has been alleged by the complainants that either OPs are not competent for the job in question or they intentionally and dishonestly cheated the complainants by charging hefty amount of his hard earned money.
8. After going through the documents on record it is important for this Commission to keep  in mind important points before declaring negligence on the part of OPs No.1&2. Firstly, the standard of care, when  assessing the practice as adopted,  is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of incident/event. Secondly when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment due to non availability of the same at the point of requirement on which it is suggested as should have been used. Thirdly, when it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those particular precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient. Throughout the case there is no such allegation alongwith evidence on record which anywhere shows  the negligence on the part of OPs No.1&2,. Thus, onus is on the complainants to clearly make out a case of negligence with concrete evidence before a medical practitioner is charged with. Thus in the absence of any concrete evidence on record proving medical negligence, the OPs No.1&2 cannot be held liable.  
9. So far as the question of charging hefty amount is concerned, a perusal of Annexure C-1 on which the complainants have relied upon, there is mention of free consultation only and not the further treatment if the patient opts for being satisfied with the consultation of the doctor concerned. In our opinion it was the choice of the complainant after getting free consultation to go for further IVF  treatment or not. Even the charges for embryo preservation paid by the complainants was not a forced one as it was again the decision of the complainants to pay the same. Hence, the complainants have failed to prove any cause of action against the OPs. Thus, the complaint being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
10.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

 

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
15/12/2023			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member