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
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member
Dr. H.B. M. Panth and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Askari Hussain and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.30, 52 and 56 of 2013
Decided on 9.1.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant in FA/30/2013:Ms. Anukriti Trivedi, Advocate
For the Respondent in FA/30/2013:Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arun Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Chetan Hasija, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep kapoor, advocate.
For the Appellant in FA/52/2013:Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate
For the Respondent in FA/52/2013:Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arun Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Chetan Hasija, Advocate
For the Appellant in FA/56/2013:Mr. Chetan Hasija, Advocate
For the Respondent in FA/56/2013:Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arun Upadhyay, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Injury There is no question of any injured person falsely implicating anyone innocent for such injury in the absence of any previous enmity.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Services – Medical Negligence – Proof of “Complainant’s had undoubtedly been able to lead documentary evidence to show that prior to that date, the Complainant No. 2 had been visiting the said Medical Centre and taking treatment/advice of the Appellant “ In the normal course, it stands to reason that she would have continued to get herself examined and treated by the same Gynaecologist when the actual time for delivery had arrived, since she had undisputedly been examined and treated for such a long time at least since 25.02.2004 which was seven months prior to the date of actual Caesarean Operation by the same Gynaecologist in the same Medical Centre “There is no question of any injured person falsely implicating anyone innocent for such injury in the absence of any previous enmity “In the light of the reasoned appraisal made in respect of deficiency / negligence by the State Commission, noting that it suffers from no misappreciation of the evidence, and the sole defence offered in arguments on their appeals having failed as being a brazen untruth, there is no reason evident to interfere with the findings of deficiency / negligence of the State Commission.” – Appeals dismissed; impugned order affirmed. [Paras 13 to 23].

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—The present three Appeals have been filed by the Appellants against the impugned Order dated 04.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint No. 13 of 2006, vide which the Complaint filed by the Complainants was partly allowed.

2. These three Appeals were earlier heard by the Division Bench presiding by Hon’ble Dr. S.M Kantikar, Presiding Member and Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member. The Presiding Member had allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint. Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member had disposed off the Appeals by confirming the findings of deficiencies/Negligence arrived at by the State Commission, but had reduced the rate of interest of delay in compliance with modification in the manner of payment. The point of dissent within the Division Bench had been articulated by the aforesaid Hon’ble Members as follows:—

“Whether the Appeals be allowed and the Complaint dismissed OR Whether the Appeals be disposed of by confirming the findings of deficiency/negligence made by the State Commission, reducing the rate of interest for delay in compliance from 15% per annum to 10% per annum and modifying the manner of payment of compensation to the Complainants”

The matter was consequently referred to a third Member by the Hon’ble President. But the concerned Member, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Deepa Sharma being on the verge of demitting office was not in a position to hear the matter, which thus came for consideration before this Bench.

3. The facts and question of law involved in these three Appeals are identical. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 30 of 2013 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from the same.

4. The brief facts are that Surya Medical Centre is a Nursing Home being run by Dr. Dinesh Kumar (OP-1) in the capacity of Director with the help of Dr. H.B.M. Panth (OP-2) and Dr. Ranjana Pandey (OP-3). On 22.09.2004 the Complainant No. 2, Smt. Asmat Bano, who was a pregnant lady, went for check-up at Surya Medical Centre. She was examined at the Medical Centre and an ultrasound report was also prepared. It was alleged in the complaint that since the lady doctor i.e. Dr. Ranjana Pandey (OP-3), was not available at that time, so Dr. Dinesh Kumar (OP-1), Director of the Medical Centre, asked the Complainants No. 1 and 2 to visit again on 24.09.2004. The Complainants again visited the Nursing Home on 24.09.2004 where Dr. Ranjana Pandey examined the Complainant No. 2 and medically advised both the Complainants that the child in the womb is not showing any movement in the womb; and that immediate caesarean operation is necessary to save the life of the child. The ultrasound report was also shown to Dr. Ranjana Pandey. It was stated in the complaint that according to the ultrasound report the pregnancy appeared normal and the due date of the delivery of the child was to fall on 24.10.2004. The caesarean operation was conducted by the Doctor on 24.09.2004. It was further alleged in the complaint that the Opposite Parties did not make any proper pre-operative preparation and care to make the operation successful. It was also averred that the Opposite Parties failed to take pre-operative care or preparation that includes securing and keeping ready adequate quality of cross-matched blood, oxygen cylinders, artificial respirator etc. not only for the purpose of operation, but also to overcome any apprehended complications. It has also been alleged that the Complainant No. 2 was admitted into the Operation Theatre without any preparations. At the time of the operation the emergency arose when the Complainant No.2 required machine operated respirator and supply of oxygen. The Doctor at Surya Medical Centre failed to supply the Oxygen to the Complainant No. 2 and for that the Director had to rush to the market to arrange an oxygen cylinder, which took at least fifteen minutes, and in that period the cells of the bra

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