Punjab

Sangrur

CC/207/2014

Shabana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Venus CT Scan - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    207

                                                Instituted on:      04.04.2014

                                                Decided on:       24.03.2015

 

Shabana wife of Mohammed Ikhlaq, resident of Inside Kacha Kot, Near Masjid, Malerkotla.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             Venus CT Scan and Ultra Sound Centre, March 3, Mall, Near Railway Station, Malerkotla through Dr. Narinder Kaur.

2.             United India Insurance Company Limited, 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Moolchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110 024 through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Shabana, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant became pregnant in the month of June, 2013 and as per the advice of her doctor, she approached the OP number 1 for her ultra sound, so that actual passion and care in the pregnancy could be provided, as such she got ultrasound scan done from OP number 1 on 12.09.2013 as she was having a pregnancy of 10 weeks and four days on that date. The OP number 1 accordingly issued report which shows that there was single live intrauterine pregnancy, for which the OP number 1 charged Rs.500/-. It is further averred that according to the report, she was clinically and medically treated. The complainant again approached OP number 1 on 28.1.2014 for her ultra sound and at this time, she gave the report that the complainant has twin intrauterine foetus with F1 breech presentation and F2 transverse lie presentation. F1 shows normal body movements and cardiac activity and F2 shows no body movements and no cardiac activity.  Thereafter the complainant immediately approached Deep Hospital, Ludhiana for further treatment on 29.1.2014. It is further stated that in the month of February, 2014, the complainant felt sudden pains and the complainant accordingly approached Deep Hospital, Model Town, Ludhiana and after thorough examining the complainant and after getting ultra sound done, gave the report that the complainant was having twin pregnancy. Further case of the complainant is that as a result of false report given by the OP number 1, she could not get treatment, food, medicine and other care for twin pregnancy. It is further stated that the complainant suffered a great shock of having gave birth to a dead child. If the OP disclosed the fact of twin pregnancy to the complainant, the complainant would have got better treatment, food, medicine, care etc.   It is further stated that as the OP number 1 gave false report to the complainant, she suffered serious complications. It is further mentioned that the due expected date of the delivery was 1.4.2014, but baby was delivered on 20.2.2014 and the baby was delivered premature due to the mental and physical shock given by the OP. As such, the complainant approached the OP for giving the false report, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of compensation and further claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint of the complainant is based on the false, concocted and vague allegations.  It is further stated that the OP is a competent doctor and is running the clinic since long and has gained good experience and knowledge in the field of ultra sound etc and the report of the OP dated 12.9.2013 is perfectly correct under medical  since.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got ultra sound scan from OP on 12.9.2013 as referred and advised by Dr. Suman Indu and the complainant was having pregnancy of 10 weeks and four days at that time.  It is further admitted that the complainant again approached the OP on 28.1.2014 for her ultra sound and this time the OP gave its report that the complainant has twin intrauterine foetus with F1 breech presentation and F2 transverse Lie Presentation.  It is denied that the OP gave false report.  It is stated that the reports dated 12.9.2013 and 28.1.2014 have been correctly issued.  However, as per usual practice, the complainant was required to get the ultra sound scan done on regularly intervals i.e. 10 weeks, 16 weeks, 20 weeks and 24 weeks, which are likely to show the regular development of the foetus. However, it is denied that the reports gave by the OP are wrong.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that on the request of the OP number 1, the OP number 2 issued a professional indemnity doctors policy w.e.f. 7.2.2013 to 6.2.2014 in favour of OP number 1 subject to the terms and conditions for Rs.5,00,000/- only. It is stated that neither the complainant nor OP number 1 lodged any claim against OP number 2. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 copies of reports of Venus CT Scan, Ex.C-3 copy of discharge card, Ex.C-4 copy of notice, Ex.C-5 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of report of ultra scan, Ex.C-7 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of certificate, Ex.OP1/3 copy of certificate of registration and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 copy of policy, Ex.OP/2 affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

5.             The complainant obtained the services of OP number 1 on 12.9.2013 to know about the pregnancy condition and OP number 1 had conducted the ultrasound and had given the report of  a single baby, but when the complainant again approached OP number 1 then second ultrasound was conducted and OP number 1 gave the opinion of twin pregnancy and also reported that there is no movement in one of the foetus.  Then the complainant approached Deep Nursing Home, Ludhiana for further treatment and there the complainant gave birth to a pre mature baby while the other was dead as the complainant could not take medicine and diet for the second child because of the report of the ultrasound dated 12.09.2013 given by the OP number 1.

 

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended that the ultrasound report dated 12.9.2013 with regard to the 10 weeks and four days pregnancy and in the second report dated 28.1.2014, there were twin intrauterine foetus and in one of the foetus no body movement was seen.  The learned counsel for OP number 1 has further contended that as per the usual practice, the complainant was required to come again to get ultrasound scan done after 10 weeks, 16 weeks, 20 weeks and 24 weeks to see the regular development of the foetus.  But, the complainant has not come for the same and failed to get the ultrasound done as stated above. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has admitted that the OP number 1 was issued a professional indemnity doctors policy for the period 7.2.2013 to 6.2.2014 insuring OP number 1 for Rs.5,00,000/- under the policy.  However, the other allegations have been denied and any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

 

8.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that in both the ultrasound reports, which are Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 on record, it is clearly written that the findings are to be correlated with clinical findings and other investigations to make a final diagnosis.  Sometimes, abnormality may not be obvious or can be missed due to various technical reasons. Repeat scan/second opinion may be taken in case of discrepancies in clinic and USG findings and this bears the signatures of the complainant as well.  The document Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3 clearly mentions that Dr. Narinder Kaur is a doctor of medicine with Radio Diagnosis subject and the office of the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla has authorised OP number 1 to conduct the ultrasound.  The learned counsel for the OP has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission,  Punjab announced in First Appeal Number 1653 of 2009, wherein it has been held that if the doctors are qualified and they have experience, it can not be said that there is any negligence on the part of the doctors.  Further the learned counsel for the OP has cited Senthil Scan Centre versus Shanthi Sridharan and another III(2011) CPJ 54 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble supreme Court has held that ultrasound is not a perfect depiction of foetus and scan result cannot be 100% conclusive and further held no negligence stands proved.  As such, we are unable to hold that the OPs are negligent in view of the above said legal position.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 24, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member