##PAGE1##

M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1433/2008

1. Dr. Smt. Ratna Shihurkar MBBS, DGO

C/o Ravin Clinic-2, Bada Bazar Dewas (M.P.)

2. Dr. Nishith Gagrani, MBBS, MS Gagrani Hospital, Moti Bungalow

Dewas (M.P.)

3. Dr. (Smt.) Anuradha Gagrani MBBS, DGO

Gagrani Hospital, Moti Bungalow Dewas (M.P.) ... Appellants

VERSUS.

1. Smt. Hemlata Chandra (Now Deceased)

Through legal heirs D.C. Upadhyay,

107, Karamchari colony District Dewas (M.P.)

2. Bombay Hospital Ringh Road

Indore (M.P.)

3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Through Branch Manager II floor, Chamunda Complex

A.B. Road, Dewas (M.P.)

4. Master Krishna Upadhyay S/o D.C. Upadhyay (Minor)

Through D.C. Upadhyay ... Respondents

: 2 :

BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI DEEPESH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.

NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 4 NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 ON WHOM SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH.

SHRI AJMAL TIRMIZI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3.

O R D E R

( 23.03.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3/appellants

is directed against the order dated 25.4.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dewas (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 44/2007, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint and has directed the opposite parties/appellants to pay Rs.5 lakhs, as compensation to the complainant/respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), in addition to Rs.28,575/-, which were spent by complainant towards treatment in Bombay Hospital. A direction is also given that the opposite parties/appellants would bear the expenses of dialysis, as and when the complainant required to undergo the same. Interest @ 12% per annum is

: 3 :

awarded on the aforesaid amount, if it is not paid in a month’s

time. Rs.1,000/-, as costs has also been awarded.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3/appellants, performed a caesarean section operation on the complainant on 14.9.2005 and the complainant gave birth to a baby. It is submitted that after the said caesarean operation, the complainant developed fever with reduced urination. Her kidneys were infected, which led to acute renal failure. In such situation the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3/appellants, referred the complainant to Bombay Hospital, Indore, for further treatment. It is submitted by the complainant that during pregnancy, she had undergone regular check-ups with the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3/appellants and no abnormality was found. It is further submitted that the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3/appellants, performed caesarean section in negligent manner due to which the complainant developed infection in her kidneys. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3/appellants, the complainant

approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3/appellants, resisted the complaint before the District Commission and in their reply

: 4 :

submitted that there was no negligence on their part in treating the complainant and in performing the caesarean surgery. It was further submitted that after necessary examination the complainants’ pregnancy was found to be normal. However, on examination on 14.9.2005, amniotic fluid in the uterus of the complainant was found decreased because of which heartbeat of baby started decreasing. Sonography report also revealed that umbilical cord was wrapped around baby’s neck. Therefore, to save lives of both mother and child, an operation became necessary, which was performed. They further stated that after surgery, in the evening, the complainant developed fever and her urine output decreased. The opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3/appellants administered antibiotics but since the