SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Nisha Gupta, President and Mr. Kailash Goyal, Member
Vikas Arya —Complainant
versus
Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospiral & Medical Research Institute and Anr. —Non-Applicants
Complaint Case No.34 of 2003
Decided on 15.3.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Umesh Nagpal, Advocate
For the Non-Applicants:Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
No money can compensate suffering and helplessness of child and trauma and mental agony of parents.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 17—Medical services—Medical negligence—Maternity—Attack of cerebral palsy to new born child—New born has suffered cerebral palsy due to negligence of non-applicants and for whole life he is in constant need of attendant—No money can compensate suffering and helplessness of child and trauma and mental agony of parents—Quality of life of family members have spoiled for ever and child has suffered permanent disability—Amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs shall be paid to complainant as compensation—Out of that amount Rs. 40 Lakhs shall be fixed deposit in name of child and his mother and accrued interest of same could be utilised for care of child—Medical expenses of Rs. 35,000/- shall be paid to complainant—Rs. 50,000/- awarded as cost of proceedings. (Paras 28, 29 and 30)

       Result: Complaint allowed.

       

ORDER

Nisha Gupta, President—This complaint has been filed against the non-applicants with the contention that wife of the complainant was having pregnancy. She consulted non-applicant no.2 on 8.6.2001 and thereafter she remains in consultation with non-applicant no.2. On 23.10.2001 she complained non-applicant no.2 for movements of the fetus are less but doctor replied that it is a general practise. On 29.10.2001 she was admitted for delivery and she delivered a child with normal delivery but during the delivery as the cord of the fetus was around his neck he could not get enough oxygen. After birth convulsions were started. Child was not treated with due care and he was discharged from the hospital. Thereafter the complainant visited to physiotherapist. CT scan was also done and it was found that child is suffering from cerebral palsy as the non-applicants have not took necessary care in delivery and after the child suffered the disease and compensation has been asked.

2. The contention of the non-applicants is that the wife of the complainant first consulted Dr. Preeti Sharma on 8.6.2001. She was advised to have sonography on 23.10.2001 which was not done by her. On 29.10.2001 she was admitted for delivery. She delivered a male child on the same day at 3.34 p.m. After the admission till delivery she was given due care and in presence of Dr. Preeti Sharma she has delivered a child. Resident doctors were also there. There was no cord around the neck of the child and baby does not cry hence, he was hanged upside down. His pulse rate was also 100 hence from bag and mask oxygen was supplied. After intial care he was shifted to paediatric care unit. No medical negligence was committed by the non-applicants. After CT scan it was found that he was suffering from cerebral palsy which is a genetic birth disease. It has also been submitted that in paediatrician care he was under direction of Dr. Bothra hence, claim should have been rejected.

3. Both the parties entered into evidence. After conclusion of the evidence and arguments on 19.5.2011 the complaint was allowed by this Commission. The National Commission vide its order dated 15.11.2016 send the matter to this Commission for fresh adjudication and opportunity is also granted to the hospital and the treating doctor to file additional documents within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In pursuance of the order of National Commission additional affidavit of Dr. Preeti Sharma and affidavit of Dr. G.C. Bothra were filed along with the photo copy of documents.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the file. The complainant has also submitted written arguments.

5. The first contention of the complainant is that the additional documents have not been filed in time. Admittedly the order of the National Commission is of 15.11.2016 whereas the documents are filed on 23.12.2016 after expiry of four weeks and could not be taken on record.

6. Per contra the contention of the non-applicants is that they received the copy of the order on 25.11.2016 which is also clear from the order of the National Commission itself as certified copy was prepared on 25.11.2016 and within time they have filed the documents. In view of the above the documents have been filed in time hence, are taken on record.

7. The contention of the complainant is that the non-applicants have not taken due care of child hence, he has developed cerebral palsy. Dr. Preeti Sharma in her affidavit has stated that the treatment given on 29.10.2001 from 11.15 to 3.15 p.m. and record of the same has also been submitted before this Commission after permission of the National Commission which also speaks that wife of the complainant was given due care since admission at 11.15 till 3.15 p.m., when she was prepared for delivery and heart beat of the child was also normal. Doppler test was also conducted. CTG of child was also normal. Hence, it can be concluded that from 11.15 to 3.15 p.

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top