IMPORTANT POINT
False Sonography report amounts to deficiency in service.

ORDER

These two First Appeals (FAs) have been filed by the Appellants under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 25.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Aurangabad, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 28 of 2015, inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2016. Respondent-1 and Respondent-2 herein were complainants and Respondent-3 was OP-1 in the said CC. Respondent-1 is the mother of Respondent-2. FA 228 of 2017 & FA 774 of 2017 have been filed by the appellants, who were OP-3 and OP-2 respectively before the State Commission in the said CC. As both the Appeals have been filed against the same order of the State Commission, parties involved are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal (FA) No. 228 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from FA 228/2017. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) in both the FAs on 17.2.2017 and 12.5.2017 respectively. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 5.12.2019 (Appellant, Dr. Renuka Pathak), 8.5.2023 (Respondent-3, Dr. Manisha Khedkar), 02.05.2023 (Respondent-4, Dr. Dhananjay) respectively in FA 228/2017.

2. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FAs, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that:—

(i) The Respondent-1(Renuka Jaybhaye) is the mother of Respondent-2 (Aarohi Jaybhaye). Respondent-3 (Dr. Manisha Khedkar) is a gynaecologist and runs hospital namely “Khedkar Hospital”. Respondent-4 (Dr. Dhananjay) is a radiologist and runs hospital namely “Chikitsa Diagnostic and Research Centre”. Whereas appellant (Dr. Renuka Pathak) is a gynaecologist and runs ‘Swasthya Hosptial’. The Respondent-1 availed services of all three professionals while she was pregnant and carrying Respondent-2.

(ii) On 14.07.2014 the Respondent-1 approached Respondent-3 for a check-up of her pregnancy. The Respondent-3 examined her and advised to go for Ultra-sonography (USG), and as per the report she was declared as carrying the foetus at about 15 weeks and 4 days. It was also informed by the Respondent-3 that foetus is well and there is no anomaly or abnormality. To follow up treatment, Respondent-1 visited Respondent-3 on 01.10.2014 when she was examined and obstetric USG was conducted. As per report of this sonography it was informed that growth of child is well and there was no anomaly or abnormality.

(iii) During the treatment with Respondent-3, Respondent-1 was not clear and confident about growth of child and its health and therefore husband of Repsondent-1 suspected some abnormality and decided to go for second opinion about growth of foetus. Accordingly, Respondent-1 approached Appellant (Dr. Renuka Pathak) in her hospital, who after examination advised to undergo certain tests with Respondent-4 (Radiologist, Dr. Dhananjay). On 18.10.2014 various tests along with ultra sound sonography were carried out but no information about any abnormality of the foetus was given in the report.

(iv) Thereafter the Appellant also conducted sonography of Respondent-1 on 03.11.2014 and no abnormality was pointed out. Then on 12.11.2014 Respondent-1 was admitted to the hospital of Appellant where she delivered a female child on 13.11.2014 at about 9:15 A.M. That, after the birth of the child Respondent-1 herein was shocked to see the child with vital deformity known as “Right Phocomelia” i.e. the portion of right hand from elbow was absent.

(v) Thereafter, Respondent-1 and Respondent-2 herein filed CC before the State Commission against OP-1 to OP-3 (Respondent-3; Respondent-4 and appellant herein) alleging deficiency in service for not informing the deformity at th