IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Medical practitioner – Medical practitioner will be held liable for negligence only in circumstances when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner.
(2) Line of treatment – Just because a doctor opts for a particular line of treatment but does not achieve the desired result, they cannot be held liable for negligence, provided that the said course of action undertaken was recognized as sound and relevant medical practice.
(3) Adverse Occurrence – Mere occurrence of an adverse outcome does not suffice to establish liability on the part of the OP, particularly when standard medical procedures were adhered to with due care.
(4) Negligence – the primary burden of proving negligence rests with the complainant.

ORDER

This Order shall decide both Revision Petitions Nos. RP 2583 of 2016 filed by Smt. Seema Sharma/Complainant and RP 2585 of 2016 filed by Dr. Ratna Jain/OP under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) arising from the Order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 71/2011, wherein the State Commission partly allowed the Appeal of the Complainant/Appellant and set aside the Order dated 20.06.2011, passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kota (‘District Forum’) in CC no. 274/05.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that Complainant No. 1, who was pregnant, had first consulted OP on 08.05.2000. Later, she visited the OP every month for regular check-ups. On 27.11.2000, when she suffered from loose motions, she approached the OP, who advised her to get admitted to the Nursing Home the next day. Following the advice, she was admitted, where she was administered a Synthocinon drip to induce artificial labour pains. The drip was started at 10:00 AM and continued until 5:00 PM that day, but there was no progress in labour. On the following day, at 6:00 PM, the Complainant was again put on a Synthocinon drip. She began experiencing labour pains around 3:00 PM, which intensified by 5:00 PM. However, the OP did not examine her until 10:00 PM, at which time her consent was obtained for a forceps delivery. The baby was delivered at 10:30 PM. Unfortunately, the newborn neither cried nor responded at birth and was placed in an incubator. The baby was diagnosed with Birth Asphyxia and ultimately passed away after a few months. She thus, filed the present complaint, alleging medical negligence during labour, particularly the use of forceps, which caused injuries and deprived the baby of oxygen.

4. In reply before the District Forum, the OP denied all allegations and stated that she had informed Complainant No. 2 and obtained consent for a forceps delivery, which she considered necessary and in the interest of the mother so as to ensure a safe delivery. While she admitted that the baby had suffered from Birth Asphyxia, she denied that it was related to the forceps delivery. The OP further argued that Birth Asphyxia could occur even in normal deliveries or Caesarean Sections. She also submitted that the Complainant had lodged a police report alleging criminal negligence, leading the police to seek an expert opinion from AIIMS. According to the Opposite Party, the AIIMS report had supported her position, concluding that delivery through forceps was neither dangerous nor risky.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 20.06.2011, dismissed the complaint with the following order:—

“The facts of these rulings correlate to the facts of the current case. Therefore are fully applicable to the instant case. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the Respondent are logical, legal and appeared to be Judicious whereas those of the Ld. Counsel of the Complainants do not appear to be reasonable, logical or legally sustainable. The Complainants have failed miserably to substantiate their case hence the Complaint of the complainants is dismissed.

Order The complaint of the complainants is dismissed. Parties is to bear their own cost.”

6. Being aggrieved by the District Forum Order, the Complainant filed Appeal No. 71 of 2011 and the State Commission vide Order dated 30.05.2016 partly allowed the appeal with the following findings:—

“26. In view of the above discussions I am of the view that Hypoxic Ischemic Excephalopathy was caused to the baby due to reasons of inducement of premature delivery in 34 weeks and inappropriate use of forceps and administration of Synthcinon against prescribed limits, which caused brain damage coupled with prolonged labour procedure. There are no indications of maternal diabetes, cardiac disease of mot