Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
S. Saravanan —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Rasi Clinic and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2159 of 2014
(Against the Order Dated 23.1.2014 in Appeal No.227/2012 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu)
Decided on 20.3.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Rajat Sehgal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Nemo
IMPORTANT POINT
Allegation of medical negligence must be proved by adducing expert opinion.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Medical services—Medical negligence—Baby born with major abnormalities—Right from very beginning complaint was in respect of advice of OP-1 on dental treatment and nowhere it has been alleged in complaint that OP-1 was deficient in not advising scan/ultrasound between 18-20 weeks of pregnancy—This is a new allegation that has been levelled against OP-1 at the time of revision petition which cannot be allowed and cannot be sustained—Even in legal notice sent to OPs, there is no mention of any deficiency for not advising scan/ultrasound to be taken up within 18-20 weeks of pregnancy—Only allegation in legal notice was that OP-1 wrongly advised that there would be no adverse effect of medicines taken for dental treatment on child—There has been no negligence on part of OP-1 because first of all, there is no proof that complications developed due to effect of medicines taken for dental treatment and secondly, there was no occasion to advice any higher level scan as all scans were found normal as per report of Sonography expert—There is no evidence available on record that abnormality developed due to effect of medicines taken for dental treatment—No expert opinion has been made available on record to prove this allegation—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 13 to 18)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, S. Saravanan against order dated 23.1.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) passed in No. F.A. No.1227/2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant alongwith his wife MRs.S. Umapriya approached the Respondent no./1/OP-1 Rasi Clinic where Dr. Thirumathi Rajakumari confirmed the 2nd pregnancy on 20.9.2007. Complainant and his wife had informed the OP-1 about extraction of 4 teeth of his wife on 18/19.9.2007 and that she consumed heavy doses of pain killer medicine and requested to advise for termination of pregnancy if the fetus would face any problem due to these medicines. The OP-1 had ruled out the doubt and assured for no effect on the fetus . She referred them to respondent no.2/OP-2 for scan. The OP-2 did first ultrasound scan on 22.12.2007 and recommended follow up scan at 18-20 weeks of pregnancy. OP-2 gave report that “Gravid uterus with single live intra uterine pregnancy corresponding to 12-13 weeks of gestational age, with adequate liquor.” On 18.4.2008 2nd scan was done by OP-2 and the findings are “Single foetus seen in, Longitudinal lie, with head in the lower pole. Fetal limb movements and breathing movements seen. Cardiac activity was present, and heart rate recorded by M mode was 143/minute (Regular). Liquor appears adequate.” 3rd Scan conducted by OP-2 on 6.6.2008 and the finding are “Real time B mode gray scale ultrasonography of the pelvis showed Gravid uterus with the following findings :- Single foetus seen in, Longitudinal lie, with head in the lower pole. Spine towards the maternal left anterior.fetal limb movements and breathing movements seen. Cardiac activity was present, and heart rate recorded by M mode was 131/minute (Regular). Regarding heart the OP-2 mentioned in all three reports that Cardiac activity was present and heart rate recorded by M mode as 165/143/131/ minutes (Regular). On 16.6.2008 a female baby was born under caesarian to the petitioner’s wife. The Pediatrician stated that the baby faced breathing trouble. Then the baby was shifted to Child Jesus Hospital. After ecocardiology, the heart doctor informed that the baby faces Tetrology of Fallot and asked to go to Chennai for further treatment. The doctors of Chennai observed that “15 days old female neonate with downs phenotype and Tetralogy of Fallot with severely hypoplastic MPA & PA confluence”. Due to negligence in not disclosing about the abnormalities even after cautioned, OP No.1 have not diagnose the fetus health and informed, so the baby born with major abnormalities. Hence, the complaint was filed before the District Forum by the petitioner/complainant against OPs seeking Rs.2.00 lakhs towards surgery charges, Rs.10.00 lakhs towards maintenance of affected baby and Rs.5.00 lakhs for mental agony.
3. The OP-1 contested the complaint. However, the District Forum finally dismissed the complaint No. 130/2010 vide its order dated 18.7.2011 as District Forum found no deficiency on the part of the OPs.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred First Appeal No. 227 of 2012 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 23.01.2014.
5. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no.1 and perused the record.
6. Respondents no.2 to 4 were deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 27.4.2015 of this Commission which states as follows:—
“Shri S. Saravanan, petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tiruchirappalli being CC no.130 of 2010 alongwith T.N. Consumer Federation. Shri S. Saravanan who claimed to be a victim of deficiency of service has filed this revision petition through his counsel Shri S. Vallinayagam. Since T.N. Consumer Federation initially was representing the main complainant as complainant no.
