Back
UTTRAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.C. Kandpal, President and C.C. Pant, Member
SATISH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
DR. ANUPAMA RAVI AND ORS. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 95 of 2005
Decided on : 20-05-2011
Mr. Pradeep Bartwal, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. J.K. Jain, Advocate, Mr. M.K. Kohli, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Khera, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that to prove medical negligence, prima facie evidence and expert opinions are required. Doctors cannot be held liable for unsuccessful treatment if they have exercised reasonable care and skill.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Dinesh Kaushal and Others v. Dr. K.K. Khurana (2002) 3 CPJ 297 (NC), Jacob Mathew (Dr.) v. State of Punjab and Another (2005) 3 CPJ 9 (SC), Martin F. D'souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 1 CPJ 32 (SC) - The court discussed the principles of medical negligence and the standard of care required by medical practitioners. It emphasized the need for prima facie evidence and expert opinions to establish medical negligence. The court held that doctors cannot be held liable for unsuccessful treatment if they have exercised reasonable care and skill.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's wife underwent medical treatment during pregnancy, and the child was born with a natural deficiency. Alleging medical negligence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the doctors did not deviate from the settled line of treatment and exercised reasonable care. The complainant failed to produce evidence of medical negligence, and the deficiency in the child was deemed natural and incurable.
Issues: Alleged medical negligence in the treatment of the complainant's wife during pregnancy, leading to the birth of a child with a natural deficiency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prima facie evidence and expert opinions to establish medical negligence. It held that doctors cannot be held liable for unsuccessful treatment if they have exercised reasonable care and skill.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found it devoid of force, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER
B.C. Kandpal, President - This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, dismissing his consumer complaint No. 45 of 1999. The opposite parties were, however, directed to pay sum of Rs. 630 to the complainant towards costs awarded on various dates by the District Forum.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Rajni, the wife of the complainant, became pregnant and on 5.2.1998, the complainant showed his wife to the opposite party No. 1 Dr. (Smt.) Anupama Ravi. The wife of the complainant was called on various dates for check-up and the wife of the complainant took the medicines as prescribed by the opposite party No. 1. In the month of August, 1998, the opposite party No. 1 asked to get the ultrasound done, which was done by opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 1 assured that the child is hale and hearty. On 10.11.1998, the wife of the complainant gave birth to a male child, who had no legs, which caused mental agony to the complainant and his wife. Alleging medical negligence, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The opposite party No. 3 in her written statement pleaded that she got the ultrasound done as per the directions of the opposite party No. 1. No amount was charged from the complainant. No negligence has been committed by her in preparing the report. It was also pleaded that she is performing the said tests since 1994 and is M.D. (Radiology). It was also pleaded that if any amount of compensation is payable by her to the complainant, the same is payable by the opposite party No. 4 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, with whom the nursing home of the opposite party No. 3 was insured at the relevant time.
4. The opposite party No. 1 filed written statement and pleaded that no negligence has been committed by her. The ultrasound report was normal. The child was suffering from complete bilateral transverse hemimelia, which is a natural deficiency. She also alleged that she is skilled doctor and no negligence was committed in the treatment of the wife of the complainant.
5. The opposite party No. 2 in its written statement pleaded that no negligence was caused in the treatment of the patient and the deficiency found was a natural deficiency. The opposite party No. 4 Insurance Company also filed the written statement.
6. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide order dated 25.2.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that during the proceedings before the District Forum, a letter was sent to Medical Council of India for seeking opinion on the subject in question but in spite of repeated reminders sent to Medical Council of India, no expert report was received by the District Forum, therefore, the District Forum decided this matter on the basis of the evidence available on record. Before the District Forum, the complainant and the opposite party No. 3 Dr. Anita Rastogi filed their written arguments. The complainant has stated that the doctor although treated the patient pertaining to the problems occurring during the pregnancy period, but the doctor never cared with regard to the development of the child in the foetus. It has also been submitted that the doctor who has done the ultrasound, only did the formality but has not disclosed the actual position of the child to be delivered. It has been submitted that the doctor who treated the patient during the pregnancy period till the delivery as well as the doctor who has done the ultrasound on the person of the pregnant lady, are guilty of medical negligence.
9. The opposite parties in their rival contention have submitted that the deficiency in the body of the child was natural and it
