ORDER

Appeared at the time of arguments

For the Complainants      : Mr. Chaitanya, Advocate

For OP-1 to 4                  : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate

                                        Mr. Mukesh Garg, Advocate

For OP-5                         : Mr. Angad Mehta, Advocate

For OP-6                         : Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate

Pronounced on: 16^th June 2023

ORDER        

In our country, mushrooming of ART centres has led to incorrect treatment of the innocent infertile couples. The specialist requires a correct knowledge about the physiology of ovulation as well as reproductive gynaecology. Routine gynaecologists without having in-depth knowledge, using incorrect protocols may be harmful. One must realise that the infertility patients are stressed both emotionally as well as financially. The instant complaint involves many burning issues like medical ethics, unfair practices and misleading advertisement.

1.       In September 2008, the couple Priyanka Tandon & Dinesh Tandon (the Complainants), on advice of Dr. Archana Dhawan Bajaj (OP-5), approached Bhatia Global Hospital and Endosurgery Institute (for short ‘Bhatia Hospital’-OP-1) at New Delhi for Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm injection (ICSI). The OP-4 Dr. Indu Bhatia and OP-5 have assured the couple about the success of ICSI.

2.       Accordingly, on 13.10.2008, the couple got admitted in the OP-1 hospital  and first step of ICSI procedure was completed. Thereafter, on 15.10.2008, embryo transfer was done in Ms Priyanka. Her pregnancy was confirmed on 04.11.2008.  She gave birth to female twins on 15.06.2009. The blood group of one of the twins revealed  AB(+), which was not a possible outcome as the blood group  of the parents was  B (+) and O- Negative  the mother and father respectively. Therefore, on 11.12.2009, Paternity test (DNA profile) was conducted at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (“CCMB”) Hyderabad. It revealed that the Complainant No. 2 was not the biological father of the twins. Being aggrieved the couple filed the instant Consumer Complaint to claim Rs. two crore as compensation for the alleged negligence and deficiency in service which created emotional stress, family discord, fear of genetically inherited diseases etc.    

3.       The Opposite parties filed their replies and denied negligence during treatment of the patient Priyanka.

4.       The OPs - 1 to 4 submitted that the OP-1 is the hospital and OPs no. 2, 3 and 4 are its directors. It was submitted that there are several disputed and complicated questions of facts, therefore, could not be decided in summery proceedings, thus matter be referred to   the Civil Courts . The OPs – 1 to 4 submitted that the procedure was performed by Dr. Archana Dhawan Bajaj (OP-5) and Dr. Indira Ganeshan (OP-6) the personal doctor of complainants. The OP-5 was not a regular doctor on the roll of the Hospital. The OP-1 has provided the space/accommodation for her I.V.F. Laboratory on usual consultancy terms of 75:25 ratio (75% to the Consultant & 25% to the Hospital). The I.V.F. laboratory set up by OP- 5 was absolutely separate & distinct from the hospital laboratory. The I.V.F. laboratory had been   maintained & monitored by OP- 5 at her own costs. The Hospital & its directors are nowhere involved in any consultant's way of treating the patient and it is only the consultant who administers the treatment to the patient independently, without any knowledge, involvement of the hospital or its Directors.

5.       The OP-4 Dr. Indu Bhatia submitted that the Complainants’ treatment was duly performed by Dr. Archana Dhawan Bajaj (OP-5) and Dr. Indira Ganeshan (OP-6) who are very competent in their fields and have specialization in the field.  The laboratory, operation theatre etc. for I.V.F. had been set up  by the OP-5 at her own costs & expenses and remained under her lock  and key . The entire set-up including the salary of technicians, anaesthetist, and embryologist and nursing staff was done by OP-5.  The staff o