Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Gupta, Judicial Member and S.C. Jain, Member
SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL AND ANR. - Respondents
Case No. C-235 of 2002
Decided on : 30-05-2013
The judgment establishes that allegations of medical negligence must be proven based on the standard of care expected from a medical professional and the specific circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act - 1986, Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The complainants alleged medical negligence on the part of the hospital and doctors, leading to the death of their unborn child. The hospital and doctors denied the allegations, stating that they provided proper treatment and care.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered expert medical opinion and found no evidence of medical negligence or deficiency in the treatment of the complainant. It also noted the qualifications and experience of the doctor accused of negligence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the hospital and doctors were negligent in their treatment of the complainant, leading to the death of the unborn child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that medical negligence must be proven based on the standard of care expected from a medical professional and the specific circumstances of the case. It considered the qualifications and experience of the accused doctor and expert medical opinion in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed as frivolous, baseless, and vexatious, and filed with mala fide intention.
ORDER
V.K. Gupta, Judicial Member (Oral)- This is complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Briefly stated the factual scenario is that the Complainant Nos. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife respectively, who were married on 3.12.1997. Complainant-2was conceived in the month of November 1999. Since it was first baby of the complainants, therefore, they were keen to take all precautions for the safe pregnancy. Complainant-1 approached Holy Family Hospital for the treatment and check of the complainant-2. She was registered in the said Hospital on 24.2.2002 in OPD. The complainants kept on visiting the Hospital as per advices and got all the tests done. Dr. Raka Guleria, OP-2 prescribed certain medicines and also assured the complainants that there would be a safe and normal pregnancy and delivery. In the month of June 2000, complainant-2 felt slow movement of the foetus, therefore, the complainants immediately met Dr. Raka Guleria, OP-2 on 13.6.2000, who advised admission. Complainant-2 was admitted in the Hospital OP-1 on 13.6.2000 till 15.6.2000. During admission, an Ultrasound was done and it was found that baby was normal and the progress of the foetus is fine and there is no reason of worry. On 11.7.2000, complainant also went to the OP-1 and an ultrasound of complainant-2 was done. The Ultrasound report suggested symmetric intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) but Dr. Raka Guleria, OP-2 did not advise any further test. On 27.7.2000, complainants also met with OP-2, who further advised for an Ultrasound with Doppler Assessment but Ultrasound Doppler study confirmed ingtrauterine growth retardation. Dr. Raka Guleria, OP-2 did not take due care and never advised for any other test like Nonstress Test (NST), Contraction stress test (CST), Fetal bio-physical profile (BPP), Vibroacousticstimulation test (CAST), Modified bio-physical profile (MBPP), Umbilical and uterine Doppler ultrasound and other related tests. On 5.8.2000, both .the complainants visited OP-2 who advised for ultrasound only and further did not advise any other test. However, Dr. Raka Guleria, OP-2 referred the complainant to Dr. Rajeev Sethi in the same Hospital who advised to come back on 11.8.2000 for admission. The OP-2 further advised on 12.8.2000 for delivery and was admitted in the Labour room and prescribed for Nonstress Test. After Ultrasound, it was found that complainant-2 is having intrauterine foetal death whereupon the doctors advised removal of the dead foetal immediately. Since the full grown baby was already dead and the life of complainant-2 was in danger, complainant requested to take all precautions to avoid any mishappeningwith complainant-2. Complainant also requested to call the concerned Doctor, Dr. Raka Guleria. Unfortunately, on 13.8.2000, complainant-2. delivered the dead foetus and OP-1 did not collect the sample of placentra/tissues for examinations/tests on the ground that the facility is not available in the Hospital. However, the Hospital collected the sample only on 14.8.2000 not in accordance with the prescribed procedure as provided by Medical Science and handed over the same to the complainant-1 for sending the same to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi along with request letter. The Ganga Ram Hospital did not entertain the said sample being collected not in accordance with the settled procedure and the samples were returned by Ganga Ram Hospital. Ultimately, Complainant-2 was discharged from the Hospital on 15.8.2000. There is sheer medical negligence on the part of OPs in the medical treatment. Complainants claim a compensation of Rs. 17 lacs along with the expenses.
3. Both the OPs have filed the written statements and denied the entire allegations. The complainant-2 was examined, check up and has been properly treated from time-to-time on her every visit as well as on both her admissions. She was also advised on the last visit on 5.8.2000 to visit the Hospital on 11.8.2000 but the complainant-2 came
