IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Standard of Care (Advice vs. Persistence) – The Commission clarified that once a doctor advises a necessary diagnostic test (like the Level-II Scan), the burden of compliance shifts to the patient. A failure to “reiterate” or “emphasize” the advice does not cross the threshold into actionable negligence if the initial advice was recorded.
(2) The “Bolam Test” and Expert Evidence – Following Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, a doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals. The AIIMS report served as the definitive expert evidence that the OPs followed standard protocols.

JUDGMENT

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against Order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 639 of 2019. In the impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner/Appellant while upholding the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (“District Forum”) dated 18.06.2019 in CC No. 244/2015.

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

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that when she was on the family way, she was taking treatment from OP-1, Dr. Anita Panwar, and used to visit her hospital for regular check-ups. The OPs gave assurance of a normal delivery to the Complainant, and she paid Rs.10,000/- in cash as advance to the OPs. At the time of delivery, the OPs informed her that the baby was not normal, and therefore a caesarean delivery was necessary. After the surgical procedure, the baby was found to be abnormal and unconscious. When the Complainant asked the doctor what had happened to her baby, the doctor misbehaved with the Complainant and said, “I don”t know what happened and all of your destiny.” Thereafter, the Complainant and her husband rushed to Delhi for treatment, but all in vain. The OPs failed to maintain the due standard of care, for which the Complainant suffered damages. Hence, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

4. The OPs filed their written version contending that the Complainant had not visited the Nursing Home for regular check-ups and that the medical advice given to her was based on the available investigation reports. It was further pleaded that a caesarean section was performed as the mother was diagnosed with cervical dystocia, and any further attempt at normal delivery would have endangered the lives of both the mother and the baby. After delivery, the baby was fully conscious but exhibited signs of respiratory distress, for which he was admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the hospital under the care of the in-house Neonatologist. Subsequently, the baby was discharged against medical advice and was shifted, at the insistence of the Complainant’s relatives, to a hospital of their choice in New Delhi, in a properly equipped transport facility under the supervision of a Neonatologist. OPs asserted that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on their part and, thus sought complaint to be dismissed.

5. The District Forum vide Order dated 18.06.2019, partly allowed the complaint with the following finding:—

“i) The OP No. 3 to pay lump sum Rs.1,75,000/- being cost of treatment alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.

ii) The OP No.3 further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and hardship due to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of Ops.

iii) The OPs No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as punitive damages for mal trade practice.

iv) The OPs No.1 & 2 further to pay Rs.10,000/- as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.”

6. Being aggrieved by the District Forum Order, the OPs filed Appeal No. 639 of 2019 and the State Commission vide Order dated 22.10.2019 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:—

“4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the record, this Commission finds that the complainant was operated by the appellants and gave birth to a male child. The complainant had cervical dystocia. The baby was discharged by the appellants in a very serious condition. The appellants did not take care of the baby due to which the complainant and her relatives were forced to shift the baby to some other hospital. The appellants nowhere pleaded that the condition of the baby was stable. The