Col. P.K. Vasudeva, Member—Mrs. Kiranjeet, aged 25, w/o Shri Harjeet Bains was admitted in the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh at 11.25 a.m. on 13.2.1995 for delivery of the second child. She remained indoor patient for several days. The child was delivered at 3.50 a.m. on 17.2.1995 but died at 4.00 a.m. in the Hospital. She has instituted this complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs alleging deficiency on the part of the respondents.

2. Briefly the facts are that Mrs. Kiranjeet had a daughter by caesarean earlier. She was admitted to the aforesaid hospital when she was expecting the second child. Soon after her admission at 11.25 a.m. on 13.2.1995 she was administered ½ unit of Pitocin. Similar dose was repeated at 2.50 p.m. to invite pain for normal delivery. A perusal of the record shows that Pitocin was repeated at 9.00 a.m. on 14.2.1995 and it was again administered at 8.35 p.m. the same day. It is a medicine used for priming of the uterus and the doctors are required to be careful about foetus position of the patient. The plea of the complainant had been that there had been Utrine Contraction every 5 minutes which is recorded on the file but no doctor visited her till 2.50 p.m. The Utrus ruptured at 2.25 a.m. and the child was born at 3.50 a.m. and was declared dead at 4.00 a.m. The demand of blood was sent at 3.15 a.m. and one unit was administered out of the two units procured. The patient remained in the hospital-till 25.2.1995 when she was discharged. At that time she had apprehension that she may not be able to bear the next baby at all.

3. There is a reply on behalf of the respondents raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Government Hospital and the doctors working therein are not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score. The learned Government Pleader did not contest the complainant’s factual record of admission and discharge and the administration of the medicine. However it was denied that the case of the patient as well as of the foetus there was any negligence.

4. The complainant’s point that she was not examined for 21 hours on 15.2.1995 has also been denied by the respondents. According to the records the complainant was examined on 15.2.1996 and 16.2.1996 at the following timings :

15.2.1996

16.2.1996

9.30 a.m.

12.30 a.m.

10.20. a.m.

2.00 a.m.

2.45 p.m.

2.30 a.m.

5.00 p.m.

4.55 a.m.

7.05 p.m.

6.30 a.m.

8.45 p.m.

7.45 a.m.

9.15 a.m.

10.00 a.m.

1.10 p.m.

2.50 p.m.

The respondents have averred that there was no delay or negligence on the part of the doctors attending the complainant. The respondents further averred that the treatment was prescribed as per the requirement at that time and there was no negligence. The doctors on duty have been examining the patient carefully and they have mentioned the treatment which was required to be given at the relevant time.

5. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that the patient was not responding adequately to medicine for inducing labour pains. Hence the instructions were given at 2.00 a.m. on 17.2.1995 to prepare the patient for caesarean. But there was rupture of the utrus at 2.25. It is on record that the relations of the patient were handed over blood samples for grouping and cross-matching at 2.25 a.m. and a call was also sent to the Senior Medical Officer on duty and the Anaesthestist for the performance of caesarean at OT at 3.15 a.m. The relative of the patient informed that the Blood Bank of P.G.I, has declined to give blood. However, the doctor on duty managed the blood at 3.50 a.m. from P.G.I. The surgery was performed immediately but the baby was dead. Even on 17.2.1995 at 2.25 a.m. when the patient was examined no foetal heart sound was heard meaning thereby that the foetus was already dead before the performance of the surgery.

6. The respondents do not feel that there was need of ultrasonography bec