SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
Baby Palak Khan and Ors. – Complainant
versus
Amit Upadhyay and Ors. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1074 of 2016
Decided on 25.9.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Amit Wadhwa, Advocate, Mr. Aftab, In Person
For the Opp. Party No.1:Mr. Anoop Kaushal, Advocate, Dr. Amit Upadhyay, In-Person
For the Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3:Mr. Ravi Gopal, Advocate

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – medical Negligence – not made out - The complaint very neatly does not dispute the handing over of the Discharge Slip to Aftab Khan which has been stated by Dr. R in the inquiry proceedings before the District Magistrate. This also clearly indicates that the Complainants without having been able to dislodge the endorsement on the Discharge Slip, which is the main bone of contention, kept on raising complaints and as a matter of fact any challenge to the endorsement does not appear to have been made in any of the complaints in spite of having knowledge of the same – Also, on an overall conspectus of the emerging facts the position that can be deduced is that no criminal negligence was established against Opposite Party No.1 – On facts, Complainants having failed to establish any negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 on the standards – Compliant dismissed. [Paras 5 to 33].

Result: Complaint dismissed.

ORDER

A.P. Sahi, President—The violation of the Hippocratic oath, allegations of gross negligence and omission to take ordinary routine care of a new-born child are the issues raised in this complaint by the child Palak, through her parents Aftab Khan (father) and Mrs. Nazrana (since deceased). The grievance is that immediately upon her birth on 3.7.2015 at Tarachand Hospital Hapur, which was a premature delivery, the child having certain respiratory distress was shifted to Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial College Hospital, Meerut Uttar Pradesh. She was treated at the Neo-natal unit of the Paedeatric Department which according to the complainants was negligent care as a result whereof she ultimately lost her eyesight.

2. Complaints were filed and the matter was contested at several Forums alleging that the Opposite Parties herein more particularly the Respondent No.1 and his assistant Respondent No.2 were responsible for gross negligence at the initial stage of the treatment and subsequently, the third Respondent also did not provide the requisite treatment and care that ultimately resulted in the loss of sight of the baby girl. Consequently, a claim based on negligence and deficiency in service for Rs.1.50 crores as compensation to the child and Rs.40 lakhs to the parents with an additional sum of expenses to the tune of Rs.2.5 lakhs coupled with Rs.2 lakhs towards litigation expenses has been raised.

3. The background of the litigation commences with allegations about the negligent attitude more particularly of the Respondent No.1 Dr. Amit Upadhyay who is stated to have nowhere taken any care for referring the child for Retinopathy or premature screening which is a mandatory test to be conducted within the first 3 weeks of the birth of a premature child. It is alleged that neither any effort was made to observe the minimum protocol that is needed in such cases nor were the Complainants informed of any such complication in the child at the opportune moment. The negligence is alleged to be about proper medical advice and taking due care for managing the aforesaid deficiency that could have been located at the initial stage had the Opposite Party No.1 and his team as well as the LLRM Hospital been vigilant.

4. The birth of the child took place on 3.7.2015 from where she was shifted to the LLR Medical College at Meerut and after spending almost 19 days, she was discharged on 21.07.2015. A discharge slip was issued on 22.07.2015.

5. Almost a month thereafter the child developed fever, vomiting and symptoms of loose motion when she was again admitted on 21.08.2015 in the Pediatrics Department and was discharged on 31.08.2015.

6. She is stated to again have developed certain complications and was admitted to the hospital a third time on 17.11.2015. During this period, the deficiency in the eyesight of the child was further diagnosed and was referred to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Eye Hospital under the treatment of one Dr. Jaishree Dwivedi. According to the contentions raised, the child was administered eye drops on her advice for 2-3 days where after she was examined by Dr. Sandeep Mittal of the Ophthalmology Department who on 30.11.2015 opined that ROP stage IV and III had developed. On this, the Complainants state that they rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences where on 2.12.2015, they were informed that it will not be possible to retrieve the eyesight of the child. Having felt hopeless about the recovery of the child, her mother Smt. Nazrana, who was the Complainant No.3 originally in this complaint, gave a written complaint to the Principal of the College on 8.12.2015. A complaint was also made to the Medical Council on 4.1.2016 levelling allegations of gross negligence particularly against the first Respondent and also against the Hospital in general.

7. According to the Complainant on the complaint before the Principal, a Committee was constituted for investigation comprising of three Doctors who opined that the Pediatric De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top