IMPORTANT POINT
Pecuniary Damages – As part of pecuniary damages, cost of travel and accommodation incurred, to obtain alternative medical treatment. Compensation that is just and equitable, including the factoring in of inflation and interest on compensation has also been permitted.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—These appeals challenge order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, “State Commission”) dated 19.10.2012 in CC No. 42 of 2007 under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”). The State Commission considered allegations of medical negligence against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in FA 757/2012 and held them liable to compensate the complainants/appellants. While the appellants have approached this Commission for enhancement of compensation, the respondents seek to be absolved of the liability in FA 771/2012 filed by them. As the facts in the case are similar and emanate from a common order, these appeals will be disposed by way of a common order. For reasons of convenience, the facts are taken from FA 757/2012.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. Respondents contentions in their submission before the State Commission is taken as their final submission.

3. The brief conspectus of facts in the case is that appellant 2, wife of appellant 1, was admitted to respondent 4 hospital (Sehat Medicare, Patiala) on 01.11.2005 and delivered a premature male child (appellant 3) on 02.11.2005. As the respondent 4 hospital was not equipped for providing neonatal care to a premature baby, she was discharged on 06.11.2005 and admitted to respondent 1 hospital (Anna Child Care, Patiala) situated above the respondent 4 hospital under the care of Dr Harinder Pal Singh and Dr Anil Jeet Arora, respondents 2 and 3. While in the care of the respondent 1 hospital, appellants consulted Dr Balbir Singh, an eye specialist regarding the eyesight of the appellant 3. According to the respondents, Dr Balbir Singh examined the baby on 04.12.2005 and 31.12.2005 and opined that the appellant 3 was suffering from treatable Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) and advised to approach the PGI, Chandigarh. At the time of discharge from the respondent hospital on 30.12.2005, appellants were advised an eye check-up for appellant 3. On consulting Dr M.K. Dogra at PGI, Chandigarh, the diagnosis conveyed to the appellants was that the baby had developed Zone 1 Stage 4B Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) and it was advised to go for laser treatment. The appellants rushed to the LV Prasad Institute, Hyderabad on 02.01.2006 and consulted respondent 6, Dr Subhadra Jalali who was considered an expert in ROP issues. After examinations on 03.01.2006 and 06.01.2006, surgery was done on 14.01.2006. While the eyesight of the child was saved, he is required to wear spectacles of power in excess of 20 for the rest of his life and requires frequent and regular follow up. Alleging medical negligence by the respondents 1,2 and 3, appellants moved the State Commission praying for compensation of Rs.99 lakhs with costs. The respondents have also approached the State Commission praying for the setting aside of this order as unjustified. As both the complaints emanate from the same order, they are being disposed by a common order.

4. The allegation of medical negligence in the instant case is based on an allegation of lack of care by the respondents during the time appellant no. 3 was admitted in the respondent 1 hospital under the care of respondents 2 and 3. It is alleged that the respondents failed to consider that in a premature baby, born prematurely after 27 weeks and weighing only 900 grams, the standard of care required screening for ROP which the respondents failed to ensure. No specialist was called to check the health of the baby during this period as per the appellants even though the newborn baby was on ventilator and oxygen support and was in the hospital for eight weeks. A Discharge Summary was initially issued on a plain piece of paper and no specific advice was endorsed. The standard of care requiring screening for ROP was not followed and no advice in this regard was provided, which, according to the appellants, constitutes medica