Anitha Raghavan VS Edappal Hospital

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, AJITH KUMAR D., RADHAKRISHNAN K. R.
Anitha Raghavan – Appellant
Versus
Edappal Hospital – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Vipindas T.K. & Sreevinayakan K.V., Advocates
For the Opp. Parties:Sheji P. Abraham, Advocate

ORDER

K. Surendra Mohan, President—This is a complaint filed under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).

2. According to the complainant, she was under the observation and treatment of the 2nd opposite party for her pregnancy related complications. She had earlier delivered two babies through caesarean surgeries but both the babies were born with ‘down syndrome’ and the babies died within few days after they were born. So the third delivery was the last hope for the complainant even though the same was advised to be a very risky one by various other doctors. With a view to avoid such complications, the complainant proceeded to take the advice and treatment from the 2nd opposite party’s hospital on the advice of their well wishers.

3. According to them as advised by the opposite party, the complainant and her husband went for a ‘Chromosome Analysis” and the result showed that no abnormalities were detected. Hence, as per the advice of the doctor, the complainant became pregnant. After her conception at each stage, the complainant had made enquiries about the status of the foetus so that an abnormal foetus could be aborted