Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 177
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CONSUMER CASE NO. 600 OF 2014
1. LAVKESH SEHGAL
FLAT NO. C-77, CLASSIC APARTMENTS PLOT NO. 11, SECTOR-22, DWARKA
New Delhi - 110 077
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. CEO, ROCKLAND HOSPITAL & 6 ORS.
Sector-12, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 078.
2. Dr. Gaurav Kapoor,
Consultant Radiologist, Rockland Hospital, Sector -12, Dwarka,
New Delhi
3. Dr. Kalpana Agarwal,
Angel Mother & Child Clinic, E-1083, Ramphal Chowk, Sector - 7, Dwarka, (Landmark: Opposite Gehna Jewellers),
New Delhi .
4. Dr. Manjul Jain,
Consultant Radiologist, Rockland Hospital, Sector-12, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
5. Dr. Manoj Sharma,
Consultant Radiologist, Consultant Radiologist, Rockland Hospital, Sector -12, Dwarka,
6. Shiv Kumar Bajoria,
Consultant Radiologist, Consultant Radiologist, Rockland Hospital, Sector -12, Dwarka,
7. Dr. Tina Goel,
Paediatrician, Rockland Hospital, Sector -12, Dwarka,
8. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
D-24, & E 25,23 K.G MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001.
...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,MEMBER
For the Complainant :
For the Opp.Party :
For the Petitioner: IN PERSON
For the Respondent: MR. BAHAR U. BARQI & MAROOF AHMAD
Key Points: - The complaint filed under section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 sought Rs 2 crore for medical negligence against Rockland Hospital and doctors. (!) - The Commission held that there is no conclusive negligence or deficiency in service by the opposite parties; the standard of care and medical outcomes do not establish liability given expert opinions and standards discussed. (!) - The complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs. (!) - The court discussed limitations of fetal ultrasound in detecting congenital heart disease and distinguished between standard USG and fetal echocardiography indications, concluding no mandatory duty to perform fetal echo in this case. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment cites relevant legal principles: medical negligence requires a direct nexus and standard of care below that of a reasonably competent practitioner; mere unfavorable outcomes do not prove negligence. (!) (!) - The court reviewed clinical findings from USG reports showing normal fetal heart activity at multiple gestational points and concluded no indicated abnormality on those scans. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Delhi Medical Council order did not hold the radiologist negligent; pre-natal cardiac anomalies like pulmonary atresia with VSD are difficult to detect antenatally. (!) (!) - The Commission relied on expert testimony and medical literature to assess standards of care in obstetric imaging and pediatric cardiology. (!) (!) (!) - The complaint alleged discrimination and non-issuance of ANC card, but the court found no breach of duty causally linked to the outcome. (!) (!) - The overall disposition: no proven negligence by the hospital or doctors; claim dismissed. (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
ORDER
Pronounced on: 9th February 2023
ORDER
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The present Complaint has been filed under section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Mr. Lavkesh Sehgal (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Complainant’) against CEO, Rockland Hospital, Dwarka and 6 doctors (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Opposite Parties) seeking compensation of Rs. 2 Crore for act of medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2. Facts: The Complainant’s wife Mrs. Vimple Sehgal was under Antenatal care (ANC) during her pregnancy at Rockland Hospital (Opposite Party No. 1 - Hospital) under consultant Gynecologist - Dr. Kalpana Agrawal (Opposite Party No. 3). During the assessment of foetal growth and mother’s wellbeing, ANC periodic checkup, relevant lab investigations including Ultrasonography (USG) were done. The details of visits and the USG findings at Rockland Hospital are as under:-
According to the Complainant, if USG shows any anomaly which in turn risky to mother or foetus, the decision could be taken either to continue or terminate the pregnancy in specific time. Therefore, with the expectations of best treatment the ANC was continued with Opposite Party No. 3 at Rockland Hospital.
3. On 14.08.2014 at 9.33 AM, the Complainant delivered a male baby at Rockland Hospital. Soon after birth, the baby was shifted to Neonatal ICU (NICU) as baby was not breathing properly, and unable to maintain the Oxygen saturation. On 15.08.2014, at around 10.00 pm, the Pediatrician - Dr. Tina Goel (Opposite Party No. 7) called the Complainant to the NICU and informed that the baby had heart disease and asked to shift her immediately to BLK Hospital or Sir Ganagaram Hospital having Pediatric Cardiology facility. Immediately around 1 a.m., by ambulance, the baby was shifted to the NICU of BLK Hospital. In the morning, on 16.08.2014, Dr. Vikas Kohli, Director & HOD, Department of Pediatric Cardiology performed Echo Cardiograph (ECHO) and informed the Complainant that his Baby had 'Pulmonary Atresia with Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD)’ (hole in heart) a Congenital Heart Disease (CHD). Dr. Vikas Kohli immediately over phone spoke to Dr. Kalpana Agarwal, who in turn informed that as per USG done during pregnancy, there were no signs of any Congenital Defect. As all USG reports including level-2 (19 Weeks) scan showed normal findings including heart, therefore, she did not recommend any tests further. Dr. Kohli explained to the Complainant about the future implications of pulmonary atresia and VSD, that up to 5 years, the child needs multiple expensive surgeries and thereafter further treatment is necessary, depending upon the age. On 16.08.2014, the child was discharged from the BLK. The Complainant paid Rs. 35,130/- as hospitalization charges.
4. The Complainant alleged that, his wife throughout pregnancy was under ANC care of Opposite Party No. 3 but no ANC card was prepared. It was alleged that the hospital and Opposite Party No. 3 discriminated with his wife as CGHS patient. It was known that for CGHS the consultant Gynecologist will be paid only Rs. 50/- per OPD consultation, whereas the Private Patients pay Rs. 500/-. The Opposite Party No. 3 gave less time and attention during every consultation. Therefore, she forgot to prescribe Fetal ECHO to know about Cardiac activity. The Complainant and his wife confronted Dr. Kalpana Agarwal and Dr. Gaurav Kapoor Radiologist (Opposite Party No. 2) about the baby’s problem but did not receive satisfactory reply. The Complainant alleged that the three Radiologists working at Hospital namely (i) Dr. Manjul Jain - Opposite Party No. 4 (ii) Dr. Manoj Sharma - Opposite Party No. 5 and (iii) Dr. Shiv Kumar Bajoria - Opposite Party No. 6 were grossly negligent, who carelessly performed periodic USGs and just casually signed the reports.
5. It was further alleged that the Pediatrician on the basis of Chest X-ray Dr. Tina Goel
