IMPORTANT POINT
Medical Negligence – Negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable & not based on perception.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President.—Both these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2011 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 293 of 2008, styled as Smt. Tapasya Vs. Dr. Daizy Sondhi and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed. The impugned judgment and order was passed by the two Members of the District Commission, whereas learned President of the District Commission per his even dated judgment and order, has dismissed the consumer complaint. Both the Member of the District Commission, while allowing the consumer complaint, has directed the opposite parties to the consumer complaint, i.e., Dr. Daizy Sondhi and The New India Assurance Company Limited, who are appellants before us in these two appeals, to pay compensation of Rs. 17,60,000/- to the complainant, who is respondent No. 1 in the instant appeals. For the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 85 of 2011; Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi Vs. Smt. Tapasya and another, is taken as a leading appeal, for the disposal of these appeals. Since both the above-mentioned appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order, hence both are decided together by this common judgment.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that respondent No. 1 – complainant, i.e., Smt. Tapasya was under the treatment of the appellant – opposite party No. 1, i.e., Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy since 28.09.2007 in connection with her pregnancy. On completion of term of pregnancy, the appellant – doctor had called the complainant on 09.07.2008 for check-up and delivery by giving artificial pain. On 09.07.2008 at about 9:00 a.m., the complainant along with her husband and mother-in-law visited the nursing home of the appellant. After check-up of the complainant, the appellant told that the heartbeat of the baby in the womb is normal and she is administering injection for labour pain. The appellant asked the complainant’s husband to bring cerviprime injection from the market and administered the said injection in the uterus of the complainant, whereas according to the opinion of medical professionals, the said injection is to be administered along with glucose. On account of administration of the aforesaid injection, the complainant’s condition got deteriorated. It was also alleged that instead of taking medical care of the complainant and treating her, the appellant admitted the complainant in room No. 3 of her nursing home. From 9:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m., neither the appellant, nor her staff visited the room for complainant’s treatment inspite of the fact that the complainant’s condition was continuously deteriorating. The complainant’s husband and mother-in-law requested the appellant that in case for saving the life of the mother and the baby, caesarian is required, the same should be conducted, but the doctor refused for the same and inspite of several requests, did not come to see the complainant. After numerous requests, the complainant’s ultrasound was conducted at 4:00 p.m., whereupon it was told that the heartbeat of the baby is quite low and the appellant took the complainant to the labour room. After passage of sufficient time, when the appellant did not come out of the labour room, the concerned mother-in-law entered into the labour room and found the complainant is having excessive bleeding and the baby is no more. When the mother-in-law asked the appellant about the serious condition of the complainant, she said that on account of her negligence, the artery of the complainant has been cut, due to which the condition of the complainant is very critical and for saving her life, she should be immediately taken to Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun.

3. It was further averred that the complainant was immediately taken to Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust,