UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. REENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.7.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in complaint No. 457/2002 whereby the opposite party No.1 (appellant No. 2 herein) has been held deficient in service as well as negligent while treating respondent -complainant at the time of delivering a child.

(2.) THE case of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that:

(3.) UPON notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement filed by the opposite party No. 1 it was stated that the opposite party No.1 was insured with United Insurance Company Limited, Yamuna Nagar for the period 26.10.2001 to 25.10.2002. It was admitted that the complainant was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party No. 1 on 20.4.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. as a delivery case, mishandled by a Dai and the patient was having a swelling on her private parts in Vulva and around Urethera which was shown to the attendant of the patient who is the mother -in -law of the patient who admitted this fact that they had tried to get the delivery effected in the house of the complainant by a Dai. The weight of the baby was 2.75 Kgms and minor operation was conducted in the Perineum which is lower of female private part and has no concern with the urinary bladder. The patient was discharged from the hospital on 24.4.2002. It was full time pregnancy with labour pains. On 30.4.2002 when the complainant visited the hospital, it was found that the stitches were healed up properly and there was no infection. However, some doubt of VVF (Vesico -Vaginal Fistula) was suspected due to mishandling of the case by Dai and for that reason the complainant was advised to consult with some Urologist but still the complainant continued visiting the opposite party 2 -3 times. Thereafter, the complainant visited Dr. Narender Kashyap who had given the diagnosis of V.V.F. reportpost -delivery and categorically stated in his report that there was no history of obstructed labour and he had also opined that this WF might be due Daihandling. The urine leakage off and on without any pressure and break after a period of one month, might be due to some other problem of the patient because as per the Medical Books, V.V.F. should have occurred within 5 to 7 days and not thereafter. The problem occurred because of the repeatedly internal examination and pressure on the cervix with bare hands in a crude and rough manner. The opposite party is a well qualified M.B.B.S. M.S. doctor having experience of more than 12 years. Thus, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.