Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5652
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
Kalyani Kapse, Presiding Member, Shaila D. Wandhare, Member
DR. RAGINI MILIND MANDLIK – Appellant
Versus
UMESH DINKARRAO PANBUDE – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/58/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nilesh Warulkar
For the Respondents: Avinash Prabhune
Medical professionals are liable for negligence if they ignore a patient's high-risk medical history and fail to perform necessary diagnostic tests, invoking the principle of res ipsa loquitur when an abnormal outcome occurs despite claims of standard care.
Headnote:The appeal was filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging a District Commission's order that found medical practitioners negligent for failing to detect fetal anomalies. The complainants alleged that the obstetrician and pediatrician failed to diagnose skeletal dysplasia and other deformities in a child born via caesarean section, despite the mother's history of a previous pregnancy termination due to anomalies. The appellants contended that the child's hip dislocation was developmental rather than congenital and that standard sonographies were normal. The primary issue was whether the medical practitioners committed negligence by failing to conduct advanced tests despite the high-risk nature of the pregnancy. The court reasoned that the failure to record the child's abnormal physical state at birth and the omission of a comprehensive family history constituted a deficiency in service. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the court held that when a professional claims normality but the result is abnormal, the burden shifts to the professional to explain the failure, especially in high-risk cases. Appeal is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of medical negligence complaint and initial ruling by district commission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. challenge based on the distinction between congenital and developmental deformities. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. evaluation of antenatal care and the validity of medical reports. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. negligence due to ignoring high-risk history and failure to record abnormal birth parameters. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. application of res ipsa loquitur and professional duty of care in high-risk pregnancies. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal and confirmation of the lower court's order. (Para 31) |
ORDER
PER MRS.KALYANI KAPSE, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellants namely Dr. Ragini M. Mandlik and Dr. Milind R. Mandlik against the Final Order and Judgement dtd22/12/2020 in Complaint No. CC/4/2019 passed by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur (Hereinafter referred as “TheCommission”) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (For the sake of brevity“The Act”)
2. The learned Commission, Nagpur has partly allowed the complaint filed under section 12 of the Act and hence this appeal.The brief facts of the appeal mentioned herein below. (Parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclature i.e. the present Appellants as Opposite Partiesand present Respondents as Complainants for better appreciation)
3. It is a Case of the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 is Consulting Obstetrician and Gynaecologist and Opposite Party No.2 is Consulting Paediatrician and Neonatologist and are doing their medical practice at Nagpur. After confirmation of pregnancy Complainant No. 2 was continuously taking treatment in the hospital /clinic of O.P. No.1 Her name was registered as patient and during the pregnancy some sonographies have been prescribed by O.P. No. 1. After report of sonography O.P. No.1 always conveyed that her health is good and foetus is normal. During the investigation O.P. No. 1 specifically informed that foetus is having opposite orientation, (Breach) due to this normal delivery would be difficult and suggested caesarean section. Accordingly, on 14/01/2011, the Complainant No.2 delivered male child after caesarean in the hospital of the O.P. That the Complainant No.2 was discharged from the hospital on 18/01/2011. That after delivery, the newly born child was found dwarf and underweight. Thereafter, the newly born baby was treated by the O.P. No.2 on various occasions.
4. After the discharge, on 12/11/2011, due to ill health of the baby, namely Lokesh had admitted at Colors Hospital, Nagpur and Dr. Vinod Gandhi treated the baby. That during the treatment, the Complainants for the first time came to know that the baby is suffering from Skeletal Dysplasia, short stature, hypotonia/delayed motor development and he was admitted for LRTI/acute respiratory distress, LRTI and congenital dislocation of hip. That from this, the Complainants readily drawn the inference that the appellants during the pregnancy of Complainant No.2 and after the birth of the baby, have committed negligence, carelessly given the treatment and are found extremely deficient in service to the Complainant No.2.
5. Complaint was admitted and thereafter notice was served to the O.P. By way of Written Version (W.S.) Opponents by general denials and defences resisted the claim of the Complainant. In reply Opposite Party submitted that the during the trimesters and on the basis of three antenatal ultrasonography investigations, any congenital anomalies were not detected. Further, the report of the sonography was normal. Therefore, there was no need to prescribe the patient for genetic counselling and/or genetic testing of a patient or couple, maternal serum screening, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), radiography, molecular analysis, amniocentesis.
6. The leamed Commission, thereaf
