Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Baby Vani Bhattacharya and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Dr. Suranjit Dutta and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.974 of 2015
Decided on 1.6.2021
For the Complainants:Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties Nos.1 and 2:Mr. S.K. Roy, Mr. Anoop K. Kaushal and Ms. Atishaya Kaushal, Advocates
For Opp. Party No.3: Nemo
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Opp. Party No. 1 cannot be held guilty of negligence by any stretch of imagination.
(2) Complainant failed to conclusively establish deficiency / negligence on the part of the treating doctor/the hospital.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58) – - Complaint - Medical Negligence - Complainant’s wife during her 2nd pregnancy consulted Opp. Party No. 1") at Khanna Nursing Home, Opp. Party 2 - Alleged that Opp. Party 1 conducted first Ultrasonography (USG), never advised 2nd level USG - Patient delivered healthy female baby - Discharged – Complainant’s baby MRI and other lab investigations diagnosed baby suffering from incurable congenital disease “Gross Communication Hydrocephalus” - Baby underwent VP Shunt surgery at Balaji Action Medical and discharged - Baby developed infection (meningitis), again admitted to Balaji Action Medical – Discharged - Doctor surgically removed the VP shunt - Baby discharged -Apparent that after 16 weeks, patient did not turn up but came to the Opp. Party No. 1 at 21 weeks 3 days - Opp. Party No. 1 cannot be held guilty of negligence by any stretch of imagination - Complainant failed to conclusively establish deficiency/negligence on part of the treating doctor/the hospital. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 12, 15 & 16)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The Complainant is a 5 year old minor baby girl and the present Complaint was filed by her father and the natural guardian Shri Partha Sarthi Bhattacharya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant/Patient’) under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) against the Opposite Parties who were responsible for the alleged medical negligence resulted delivery of Hydrocephalus baby.
Complaint:
2. On 22.02.2013, the Complainant’s wife during her 2nd pregnancy consulted Dr. Suranjit Dutta- the Obstetrician & Gynecologist - (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 1”) at Khanna Nursing Home (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 2”). She categorically informed the doctor about her first daughter suffering from ‘Autism’ and therefore requested to take every precaution and to carryout possible diagnostic tests to avoid any physical and mental defect to her 2nd child. Throughout 9 months of pregnancy, she was under the Antenatal care (ANC) of Dr. Suranjit Dutta. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 1 conducted first Ultrasonography (USG) on 13.04.2013 and thereafter doctor never advised 2nd level USG. The patient delivered healthy female baby on 24.10.2013, it was normal delivery. The mother and the child were discharged on 25.10.2013. Thereafter, on 11.11.2013, the Complainant noticed that the baby’s head had started to swell and consulted the Pediatrician Dr. Dinesh Goyal in the same hospital. After MRI and other lab investigations it was diagnosed that the baby was suffering from an incurable congenital disease “Gross Communication Hydrocephalus”. The parents had discussion with few other doctors and learnt that Hydrocephalus could have been diagnosed easily during early pregnancy and timely aborted the unwanted pregnancy.
3. On 19.11.2013 the baby underwent VP Shunt surgery at Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute and discharged on 28.11.2013. The shunt was implanted through her head up to her stomach Thereafter, on 14.12.2013 baby developed infection (meningitis) and again admitted to Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute. Baby was treated with numerous antibiotics and other medicines and discharged on 05.01.2014. Again at 3rd occasion the baby was admitted on 11.01.2014 for meningitis. The doctor surgically removed the VP shunt and the baby was discharged on 12.03.2014.
4. Being aggrieved by the alleged negligent treatment by the Opposite Parties, the instant Consumer Complaint was filed before this Commission, praying compensation of Rs. 2 crore with interest @24 % p.a. for the Opposite Parties.
5. The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 filed their joint written version and denied any negligence during the treatment of mother and baby. It was submitted that the Opposite Party No. 1 was a qualified Obstetrician and had experience of 27 years, conducted 8000 to 9000 deliveries including LSCS and other surgeries. The Opposite Party No. 2 is owned by a Surgeon Dr. Vivek Khanna. It was submitted that the 1st USG was conducted on 13.04.2013 at the Opposite Party No. 2 hospital and baby was found to be normal. The Opposite Party No. 1 advised Triple test and USG at 16 weeks of pregnancy, but it was denied by the mother. However, later on she brought a USG report from Janta x-ray Centre; which reported as normal baby. It was further submitted that the patient was irregular during ANC check-up, did not follow the instructions. She was called for anomaly scan after 3 weeks, between 17 to 20th week of pregnancy but she came after 5 ½ weeks (late after 18 days). It was 21 weeks 3 days; therefore as per law the termination of pregnancy was prohibited. In case if minor changes in ventricular size of brain detected, it could be spontaneously cured before birth or could be treated after birth. The Complainant has not filed any Medical Certificate about the said anomaly from any Govt. authority.
6. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as the “Opposi
