Medical negligence requires proof of a breach of duty and causation; the failure to detect fetal abnormalities in basic ultrasound does not constitute negligence if conducted per medical standards.

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 576 of 2014 styled as Smt. Renu vs. Dr. Manoj Singh, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,50,000/- towards mental and physical agony, total sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of consumer complaint, i.e. 17.10.2014 till the date of actual payment alongwith Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant gave birth to a child on dated 22.04.2014 in Himalayan Hospital, Jolly Grant. After the birth, she found that the child had significant abnormalities including absence or severe under development of Fetal Femur Length, lumbar and sacrum. These anomalies resulted in child’s inability to sit, stand or move the lower part of the body independently. On inquiring from the doctors, it was found that this type of abnormalities are deducted in ultrasound before birth, for which the doctors get ultrasound done for pre-natal birth. The complainant too had got ultrasound at the opposite party’s clinic on dated 14.10.2013 prior to the birth of her child. According to the report provided by the opposite party, the foetus was measured to be of 8 weeks and 4 days old. All the findings were indicated as normal. The complainant underwent to subsequent ultrasound examinations at opposite party’s clinic on dated 19.12.2013 and 03.03.2014 and later on 26.03.2014, i.e. just prior to the delivery. In each of these reports, the clinic reported that the foetus was developing normally and did not indicate any abnormalities. Following the birth of her child, the complainant obtained a MRI at Himalayan Hospital, Jolly Grant on dated 23.04.2014. The MRI revealed that the child’s lower lumbar spine and sacrum was either absent or severally underdeveloped. The doctors indicated that such anomalies are detectible during three months of pregnancy. Despite undergoing the multiple ultrasound examinations at opposite party’s clinic during her pregnancy, the complainant was informed that the foetus was developing normally with no abnormalities reported. Following the refusal for further treatment at Himalayan Hospital, Jolly Grant, she shifted her child to AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi on dated 19.05.2014 seeking appropriate medical care. There the doctors also indicated that the above disability was due to absence or severally underdeveloped Lower Lumbar Spine and Sacrum and that the opposite party had committed gross negligence and gross deficiency in providing medical services. On getting the child examination in AIIMS Hospital, Rishikesh on dated 07.07.2014, the doctor there also indicated that the opposite party did not give correct ultrasound report at the right time and informed very belatedly about physical disability of the child due to which the child is unable to sit, stand or move the lower part of the body independently and he was physically handicapped. As a result of above mentioned actions by the opposite party, the complainant has faced significant mental, physical and financial distress. The failure to deduct and communicate such abnormalities during the ultrasounds constitutes serious breach of medical duty. This is indicative of gross medical negligence and