Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Jain, President &
Mrs. Pramila S. Kumar, Member
DR. ANITA PARASHAR—Appellant
versus
PREETI KOCHAR & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Nos. 2120 and 2145 of 2003—Decided on 20.6.2005
For the Appellant :Mr. Deepesh Joshi for Dr. Mrs. Anita Parashar and Mr. Atul Dhariwal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sibu Francis, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that in cases of medical negligence, a doctor must act with a reasonable degree of skill and care, and medical opinion may differ in determining the course of treatment.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Caesarean Section - Consumer Protection Act - Section 15, Achutrao 1996 (2) SCC 634
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint against two private practitioners, Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar and Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora, for performing an allegedly unnecessary caesarean operation on a pregnant woman. The complainant claimed compensation for medical negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the caesarean operation was warranted and not a case of medical negligence. It also noted that no fees were paid to the appellants by the complainant or her relatives, contrary to the allegation of greed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the caesarean operation was performed negligently and whether the appellants were motivated by greed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achutrao 1996 (2) SCC 634, emphasizing that a doctor must act with a reasonable degree of skill and care, and that medical opinion may differ in determining the course of treatment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the complaint of the respondent No. 1. No costs were awarded to either party, and the amount deposited by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act was to be refunded to them.
Mr. Justice N.K. Jain, President—Both these appeals by two opposite parties Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar and Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora arise from the order dated 14.11.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Balaghat in Case No. 53/2001 directing appellants to pay to respondent No. 1 -complainant Smt. Preeti Kochar compensation Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively. Rs. 1,000/- have been awarded as costs of the proceedings.
2. Both appellants are private practitioners. Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar who is a Gynaecologist having degree of MBBS and Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora is possessed of MBBS degree. It is no more in dispute that the complainant Smt. Preeti Kochar had on 2.2.2001 having full nine months pregnancy firstly approached Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora at Baraseoni a tehsil headquarter of Balaghat District and on reference by Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora she was taken to nursing home of Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar at Balaghat where delivery by Lower Segment Caesarean Section was performed by Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar. She gave birth to a healthy female child. The only grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that said caesarean operation was unnecessarily performed as it was a case of normal pregnancy and she was all the time made to understand by Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora that it will be a normal delivery. It is alleged that these two doctors out of sheer greed of money had performed caesarean operation. The complainant thus claimed compensation Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3. The complaint was resisted by the appellants and it was submitted that the chin of foetus was rotating backwards and despite all efforts there was no sign of normal delivery and as such delivery by Lower Segment Caesarean Section had to be performed in the interest of both mother and child. It is further contended that no fees was paid to them by the complainant or her relatives/attendants and it was for this reason that the false complaint has been filed against them.
4. Parties adduced evidence in the form of affidavits. The Forum below upheld the contention of the complainant that caesarean delivery was wholly unwarranted and that it was a clear case of medical negligence on the part of the Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar and that Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora also added in performance of the said unwrranted caesarean delivery. With these findings Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar was saddled with compensation of Rs. 15,000/- while Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora was directed to pay compensation Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.
5. We have heard Mr. Deepesh Joshi, for appellant Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar, Mr. Atul Dhariwal, learned Counsel for appellant Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora and Mr. Cibu Francis learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 complainant Smt. Preeti Kochar.
6. At the outset it may be observed that no expert evidence could be adduced by the complainant to demonstrate that delivery by caesarean section was wholly unwarranted. From the affidavits of the complainant and her relatives it is clear that prior to the said delivery, complainant was taken to and examined by Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora at Baraseoni and that Dr. Smt. Jayshree Arora on examination had clearly opined that movements of the chin of the foetus are backwards and that normal delivery in the case did not seem possible. In fact it was for this reason that the complainant had to be taken to District headquarter Balaghat for further management by Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar who was an experienced gynaecologist. Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar has sworn a detailed affidavit stating the circumstances which made her to opt for Lower Segment Caesarean Section. As already stated the operation resulted into birth of a healthy child and no evidence whatsoever could be adduced to show that there was any deficiency in performance of said caesarean section or that it led to any post-operative complication. The statement made on oath by Dr. Smt. Anita Parashar could not be challenged or controverted
