ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 26.08.2019 Date of Reserve : 27.01.2022 Date of Decision : 18.02.2022 Rekha aged 28 years wife of Netra Pal, resident of 47/5, No.1 Area, Air Force Station, Pathankot.

(E-mail : divjyotsandhuadvocate@gmail.com)

….Complainant Versus

1. 167 Military Hospital through its Medical Superintendent C/o 56 APO.

2. Lt. Col. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, AMC, CL.SPLTT (Obst. &

Gynae) 167 Military Hospital through its Medical Superintendent, C/o 56 APO.

…..Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:-

Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member, Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the complainant : Sh.Mukal Goyal, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh.V.K.Arya, Advocate with Col. Davinder Bhardwaj, Sr.Advisor RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking following directions to the opposite parties:

a) to pay Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation for upbringing the third child which due to the negligence of opposite parties could not be aborted in time and now the complainant has to spent money for the upbringing and education.

b) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain;

c) to pay Rs.1.10 lakhs towards costs of litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainant visited opposite parties’ hospital on 14.08.2018 and was diagnosed to be pregnant. The LMP was 08.05.2018 and the expected date of delivery was given as 15.02.2019 recorded in the medical card, Ex.C-1. On 26.09.2018, ultrasound examination was done and as per report, Ex.C-2 Single Life Intrauterine Gestation seen in Cephalic Presentation. Thereafter, subsequently visited the hospital as per schedule. Since the complainant was having lot of pain and uncomfort she got herself checked from a Private Clinic who conducted Ultra Sound 24.11.2018 and reported Twin pregnancy with fetus of 30 weeks 3 days gestation and another fetus of 29 weeks 1 day gestation vide Ex.C-3. Again on visit to opposite parties’ hospital on 28.12.2018 another ultra sound was conducted wherein it also revealed twin line uterine in fetus vide Ex.C-4. She was admitted to opposite parties’ hospital on 04.01.2019 and gave birth to twin children (two healthy male weighing about twin-1, 2.265 kg. and twin-2 weighing about 2.08 kg.) as per notification Ex.C-5. Further averred that the ultrasound was done on 26.09.2018 in a casual way and the attending doctor could not make out that it was a case of twin pregnancy. With the negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant has to bear the expenses of one more child. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant as prayed above.

3. Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing written statement with the preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer being wife of serving Air Force Personnel holding rank of Corporal availed free medical facilities in the services hospital. Further submitted that first obstetric ultrasound was done on 26.09.2018 (at 20 weeks of gestation 4 days) but as per guidelines of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare- at least one 1^st trimester obstetric ultrasound scan is recommended to confirm intrauterine pregnancy correctly dating the pregnancy and diagnosing single/multi-foetal gestation. The 18- 20 weeks level II ultrasound is primarily aimed at diagnosing gross fetal abnormalities and for serial evaluation for growth and development. Guidelines on use of ultrasonography during pregnancy issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare states that an obstetric ultrasound done at 19-20 weeks gestation can detect upto 94.4% of twins and not 100%. On merits, USG examination was done on 26.09.2018 and report by ‘Radiologist’ as single life intrauterine gestation seen in cephali