The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the court will carefully analyze the evidence to determine whether there was a deficiency in services or medical negligence on the part of the respondents.

ORDER :

MR. GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No. 69 dated 17.3.2011 vide which the learned President had partly allowed the complaint with a direction to OP No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and for deficiency in services whereas OP No. 4 was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for not providing the information under Right to Information Act (in short ‘RTI’) and violation of PNDT Act along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization whereas two Members of the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

2. The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondents on the allegations that she was pregnant and was diagnosed so by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. She visited Civil Hospital, Kotkapura under CR No. 4180 dated 28.10.2009 with respondent No. 3 for Ultra Sound test. After depositing the necessary fee, she had undergone Ultra Sound test on 29.10.2009 done by Dr. S.K. Malik and its report was given by respondent No. 3, who stated that the report does not disclose about the Hydrocephalus abnormities of the fetus nor any genetic counselling was done by the respondent and she was advised to visit Dr. Sneh Prabha. She had been taking treatment from Dr. Sneh Prabha from the date of conceiving to the date of delivery but these Doctors did not disclose about the fact of Hydrocephalus. The respondents even said that her delivery was normal and despite having knowledge that the child was having Hydrocephalus, she was discharged on 7.1.2010. After 10-12 days, the child did not stop crying. She took the child to Chandigarh Hospital from where she came to know the fact of Hydrocephalus and MRI was advised. Respondent No. 5 Dr. Ram Deep Singh Dang after consultation advised for admission of the child in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot (in short ‘GGS Medical College’) and, accordingly, the child was got admitted there on 15.4.2010 where respondent No. 5 conducted two wrong operations duly knowing that the child will not survive due to the deficiencies on the part of the respondents. It was alleged that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 concealed the fact of Hydrocephalus of the child and by not doing genetic counselling were medically negligent and deficient in their services towards the treatment of the child. In case the factum of Hydrocephalus was disclosed to her she might not had conceived the child. Even respondent No. 4 did not give the medical record of the complainant demanded under RTI. Notice under Section 80, CPC was given by the complainant to the respondents on 28.8.2010 through Mr. Jatinder Marria, Advocate of Faridkot and then the complaint with a direction to the OPs to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs.

3. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6 did not appear despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. Whereas the complaint was contested by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Respondent No. 3 in its written reply had taken the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable and that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant visited Civil Hospital, Kotkapura under CR No. 4180 for ante-natal checkup, at the time she had Amenorhea of 7 months with no previous checkup or any investigation at Civil Hospital, Kotkapura. She was clinically examined thoroughly by respondent No. 3 on 28.10.2009 and had prescribed certain medicines and advised Ultra Sound (USG). She had no knowledge whether the patient had purchased the medicines or consumed the same. The USG was done