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 at the earliest stage. According to the complainant, that was her last chance to undergo a caesarean surgery for delivery as both her earlier deliveries were through caesarean sections. During the tenth, sixteenth and twenty first weeks of her pregnancy, the complainant underwent scanning at the 1st opposite party hospital and the result was stated to be normal. No abnormalities were reported in the scanning of the complainant. On 09.02.2007 the 2nd opposite party and his team of doctors conducted a Chromosome Analysis for the foetus and in the result, it is stated that no abnormalities were detected.

4. The complainant was again advised by the 2nd opposite party to undergo scanning and in the twenty sixth, thirtieth and thirty fifth week of pregnancy and she scrupulously underwent the scanning. All the results were to the effect that the foetus was normal and without any abnormalities. The complainant was pleased with the advice of the opposite parties and she decided to opt for a caesarean operation so as to ensure a safe delivery as no complication or abnormality whatsoever was ever detected by the opposite parties or communicated to her.

5. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant, on 13.04.2007 she delivered a baby boy with abnormally formed limbs. Neither of the opposite parties nor any responsible person had even given her any indication regarding the abnormality of the child before delivery in spite of repeated scans. Though the opposite parties were questioned by the complainant and her relatives, the hospital authorities had no proper answer or explanation for the above turn of events. As a result, the final hope of the complainant to become the mother of a normal healthy child was lost forever. The said consequence was only due to the gross negligence and deficiency in service of the doctors who treated the complainant. The opposite parties then promised the complainant that she would be adequately compensated by the payment of a lumpsum amount or an annual payment, if the child survived for one year, towards the expenses of bringing him up. The misfortune of the complainant was caused due to the sheer negligence and wrong advice of the opposite party. The child has survived for more than one year and the agony of the complainant has multiplied seeing the child struggling. The child requires the constant attention and care of an attendant. The prospect of the complainant to take up some employment has also been shattered. The life of the complainant has become miserable. All the misery of the complainant could have been avoided had the opposite parties shown due care and diligence in managing her pregnancy. Had the deformity of the foetus been detected at an early stage, the complainant could have undergone an abortion.