Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President & Mr. Ratan Prakash, Member
LALLURAM MEENA—Complainant
versus
DR. S. MATHUR & ANR.—Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No. 69 of 1996—Decided on 16.11.2000
Negligence - Medical Malpractice - 1. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definitions of 'complaint', 'deficiency', 'service', 'consumer', and 'unfair trade practice'. The court also considered the obligations of service providers and the rights of consumers under the Act. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision in dismissing the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged negligence and medical malpractice by the opposite parties, claiming compensation for mental handicap caused to a child delivered by his wife. The opposite parties contested the complaint, disputing the date of discharge and denying negligence in treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the complainant's evidence regarding the date of discharge, disbelieving the claim that the child was discharged on 21.1.1994. The court also rejected the allegation of negligence, concluding that the complainant and his wife were responsible for the child's condition and that the complaint was filed after the statutory limitation period.
Issues: 1. Discrepancy in the date of discharge. 2. Alleged negligence in treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant failed to prove the date of discharge and establish negligence in the treatment of the child. The court also emphasized the importance of filing complaints within the statutory limitation period.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the opposite parties were awarded costs for contesting a false and frivolous complaint.
Mr. Ratan Prakash, Member—This order disposes of a complaint which has been filed by one Sh. Lallu Ram Meena husband of Smt. Kaushalya against Dr. S. Mathur and another to claim an amount of Rs. 19,31,500/- as compensation for negligence and causing irreparable mental handicap to a child delivered by Smt. Kaushalya on 17.1.1994.
2. Facts as stated by the complainant are that he admitted his wife Smt. Kaushalya in the hospital of opposite party No. 2 on 17.1.1994 having labour pains. Smt. Kaushalya gave birth to a male child on 17.1.1994 at 10.40 p.m. the child weighed 3 kg. and both the mother and the child were under treatment in the hospital of opposite party No. 2 where opposite party No. 1 Dr. S. Mathur attended and treated her till they were discharged from the hospital on 21.1.1994. The complainant alleged that though the child suffered with jaundice right from the time of its birth, the mother and the child were discharged on 21.1.1994 by the opposite parties assuming them that both of them are fit to be discharged. It is further the case of the complainant that immediately reaching the home after two or three hours after the condition of the child became serious. They brought the child to the opposite party’s hospital the same day but they refused to render any treatment on the plea that unless Rs. 500/- are paid as their fees they will not examine the child. The child thereafter was admitted in J.K. Lon Hospital on 21.1.1994 where he was kept under treatment for almost 11 days i.e. from 22.1.1994 to 1.2.1994 during which a number of clinical tests were got done. After discharge from J.K. Lon Hospital the child remained under the treatment of one Dr. Ashok Gupta and medicines were administered to the child as is evident from Annexures 11 to 20. The complainant alleging that the illness of jaundice to the child reached the limit of 18% mg. and had this illness could have been checked right from the time of the birth, the child would not have become serious. The complainant did not sit idle and got the child examined through a Psychiatrist Dr. Shiv Gautam who told him that the mental handicap of the child has increased because of jaundice and that there are no chances of his recovery; though the child was treated and given medicines as is evident from Annexures 21, 22 and 23.
3. The grievance of the complainant is that he got a mental shock when one Dr. Sanjay Pamecha, Medical Officer Incharge of the Primary Health Centre, Chandwaji (Jaipur) gave a report (Annx. 24) on 9.12.1996 that it is a mental handicap of the child which is incurable. That neither the child speaks nor is able to manage his neck nor he is able to walk and that the life of the child has been spoiled. The complainant accordingly approached the opposite parties complaining about the consequences of their negligence but he and his wife were thrown out which gave him a cause of action to approach this Commission to advance a claim against the opposite parties amounting to Rs. 19,31,500/- as detailed in para 20 of the complaint.
4. The opposite parties were summoned who have contested the complaint by filing a written reply. The stand of the opposite parties has been that though the complainant’s wife Smt. Kaushalya was admitted in opposite parties’ Sharad Hospital, Jaipur and a child was born to her yet the patient was discharged on 20.1.1994 and not on 21.1.1994 as asserted to by the complainant. It has been urged that the complainant has fabricated the documents relating to the admission and discharge of the patient and as such the complaint should be dismissed only on this ground. It has also been urged that neither the complainant nor his wife brought the child to their hospital on 21 or 22 of Jan., 1994 nor that demanded Rs. 500/- for consultation as averred to by the complainant. It has also been stated that as according to the complainant himself the child was admitted in J.K. Lon Hospital, Jaipur on 22.1.1994 at 1.40 p.m. i.e., almost after 48 h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
