Medical practitioners must maintain a standard of care; failure constitutes negligence, justifying claims for compensation.

1. Appeared at the time of arguments through Video Conferencing.
1. The instant Appeal is preferred by the Opposite Party under S.19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the impugned Order dated 28.10.2015, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), whereby the State Commission held the Opposite Party liable for medical negligence and partly allowed the Complaint.
Brief Facts:

2. The Complainant, Rachna Agrawal (hereinafter referred to as the patient), during her pregnancy, since 28.9.2012 was under Antenatal care of Dr. Vartika Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party’). It was alleged that on 23.5.2013, the Opposite Party conducted her forceps delivery, which resulted in to 4 th degree tear in the perineum (the area between vaginal canal and anus). It was further alleged that the Opposite Party stitched the skin only, without muscle repairs, therefore the patient lost her control over passing the urine and stool. The Opposite Party did not treat the complications properly. Thereafter, the Complainant consulted Dr. Lalit Nihal at Raipur, who performed Sigmoidoscopy and diagnosed ‘poor tone’ and ‘very poor anal squeeze’. Later on, Dr. Rajesh Sainani, the Gastroeterologist at Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai carried out ano - rectal Manomerty, which confirmed ‘weak squeeze’ of anus. MRI was performed there, it showed thinning of the internal and external anal sphincter, therefore there was loss of control on bowel movements. Thereafter the patient took opinion of Colorectal Surgeons Dr. Prajesh Bhuta and Dr. Parwez Shaikh at Mumbai advised to undergo repair surgery. On 30.12.2013, she got operated by Dr. M. G. Norayani and Dr. S.K. Desai at Bombay Hospital for Perineorrhaphy with repair of sphincters and was discharged on 4.1.2014. However, the patient did not get complete recovery. It was alleged that she was deprived of marital happiness for 2 years and lost her the chance for normal delivery in future. It was further alleged that the Opposite Party gave only Discharge summary without treatment details. Complete medical record was not issued. Being aggrieved, she filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission and claimed Rs. 35 lakh as compensation.

3. The Opposite Party filed the written version and denied negligence during the delivery on 23.5.2013. It was submitted that outlet forceps were applied and before applying forceps, episiotomy (a small cut at vaginal opening) was made to facilitate the extraction of the baby along with forceps and prevent stretching of vagina and perineal tear. There was no perineal tear after the delivery and the episiotomy wound was sutured and the patient was discharged in stable condition on 26.5.2013. During follow - up examination on 29.6.2013 and 27.7.2013, the episiotomy wound was healthy. Thereafter, till November, 2013 on several occasions, the patient visited the Opposite Party and Dr. Abha Singh but any time she never complained about incontinence (loss of control on passage of stool and urine) and there was no perineal tear. At 1st time after 6 months, the patient complained about the incontinence; therefore it was impossible to sustain pain for 6 months without any treatment, if 3rd or 4th degree tear was present.

4. Based on the averments and evidence, the State Commission partly allowed the Complaint of the Complainant and directed the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000 to the Complainant as compensation with 9% inte