ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—This Order shall decide both the Revision Petitions arising from the Order dated 26.02.2013, passed by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 968/2008. The Appeal was allowed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) dated 20.05.2008 in Complaint No. 222/2007 was set aside and a compensation of Rs.2 lakh in lumpsum was awarded payable Jalandhar jointly and severely by the Petitioners.

2. For the convenience, the facts are drawn from Revision Petition No. 2269/2013 and the parties are referred to as in the District Forum.

3. Brief facts that the Complainant’s wife Mrs. Dipika (hereinafter referred to as the “patient”) during her pregnancy was under regular antenatal checkups at ESI Hospital, Jalandhar. On 30.04.2007, in the morning, for checkups he took his wife to the Hospital but the staffs there were busy in arranging farewell of the Medical Superintendent. The doctor on duty saw the ultrasonography scan (USG) report done from M/s Kapoor Scanning Centre, Jalandhar and asked the patient to come on the next day. However, on the same day at 9 pm, the patient developed severe labour pains and got admitted in hospital. It was alleged that throughout night neither any duty doctor nor staff nurse attended the patient. The Complainant requested to shift the patient to another hospital, but no avail. The hospital did not provide ambulance. On the next day i.e. 01.05.2007, the patient’s Caesarean (LSCS) operation was done by another doctor but because of the delay baby was already dead. It was alleged that had the Caesarian operation been conducted on 30.04.2007 itself, the baby could have been saved. The Complainant alleged that the Hospital was also responsible, being unable to provide good quality medical care to their people under the ESI Corporation. The Hospital lacks basic lifesaving facilities like ambulance, blood bank and scanning etc.

4. Being aggrieved by the negligence of the doctor and hospital in their duty of care and deficiency in services, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Jalandhar against the Opposite Parties and claimed Rs.18 lakh compensation from the Opposite Parties.

5. The Opposite Parties - the Medical Superintendent and Dr. Reema Gogia filed their respective written versions and raised the preliminary objections on maintainability of the Complaint. They denied any negligence during patient’s treatment and delivery.

6. That the District Forum found no negligence and the Complaint was dismissed vide Order dated 20.05.2008. In challenge, the Complainant filed the First Appeal before the State Commission, it was allowed and the order of District Forum was set aside. The State Commission directed the Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital of Jalandhar (Opposite Party No. 4) and Dr. Reema Gogia (Opposite Party No. 6) to pay jointly and severely the lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.2, 00,000/- to the Complainant.

7. Being aggrieved, the both the Petitioners filed these two Revision Petitions.

8. Heard arguments from the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the material on record.

9. There are two issues, one that, whether the Petitioner, Dr. Reema Gogia, performed her duties with reasonable care as per the standard of practice and second, that whether the State Govt. was correct to fasten liability on the present Medical Superintendent Dr. Ravindra Kumar Gupta to pay the compensation.

10. As per the evidence of Complainant, in the evening, the patient was sent back home for the reason of farewell function of one hospital staff. However, due to severe labour pains she was again reported to the hospital at 10:30 pm and she was examined by the doctor on emergency duty- Dr. Reema Gogia (Petitioner) who was also attending throughout night the other 30 admitted patients. Though she was not a