ANITA Vs. VANDANA SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Anita w/o. Sh. Umesh Kumar (hereinafter to be referred as "Complainant") has filed this consumer complaint before this Commission under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging medical negligence committed by opposite party -Dr. (Smt.) Vandana Sethi in her treatment and compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 (Rupees twenty five lacs). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Anita (complainant) w/o. Sh. Umesh Kumar was in serious labour pain on 27.9.2005. She went to opposite party for check -up. After examination opposite party advised complainant's husband to admit his wife to the opposite party's hospital. On doctor's advice, the complainant's husband admit his wife to the opposite party's nursing home. The doctor assured him for his wife's normal delivery. After some time he was informed by the opposite party that Caesarean operation will be conducted. Due to critical condition of the complainant, the complainant's husband consented for the same. During operation the opposite party called other doctor for Anesthesia. The complainant's husband stated that the opposite party operated his wife in haste, resulting failure of operation, by which the new -born child died in half an hour after birth. Due to carelessness of the opposite party, the complainant lost her child and her condition became critical. During operation the opposite party arranged an ambulance and referred his wife to Himalayan Hospital, Jolly Grant, but the opposite party did not take any consent from him. The complainant alleged that the operation was conducted at a place where there was no life -saving equipments. Due to gross negligence of the opposite party, the complainant lost her child and bear mental and physical loss and the complainant is in apprehension to become handicap. The complainant's husband lost his service and became unemployed. It is stated that the complainant had suffered huge monetary loss and mental agony.

(2.) THE opposite party stated in her written statement that the complaint is baseless, misconceived, false and unacceptable. Actual facts are concealed by the complainant. The complainant did not disclose that how many doctors treated her and what treatment was given to her during pregnancy. That no fee was charged from the complainant. It is only allegation that on opposite party's advice the complainant's husband admitted his wife in the opposite party's nursing home. That before 6.00 p.m. on 27.9.2005, the complainant was neither examined nor any treatment was given to her by the opposite party. In the evening of 27.9.2005 at 6.00 p.m., the complainant's husband brought his wife to opposite party's nursing home and said his wife's treatment was going on in Government Hospital, Rishikesh, but due to high risk case, his wife was referred to Doon Hospital, Dehradun, but due to critical condition the complainant was unable to travel to Dehradun. After hearing the complainant's problem the opposite party agreed to fulfill her duty as a doctor and checked the patient. After check -up it was found that the patient's case was a "post -dated pregnancy with labour pain with leaking P/Vc meconium staining of liquor c history of hypertension". The opposite party informed the complainant's husband that the child had excreted stool in mother's womb, which was dangerous for unborn child and it was a case of LSCS (Lower Segment Caesarean Section). The patient was admitted to Puri's Sanjivani Hospital, Rishikesh of which the opposite party is a visiting doctor. The complainant's husband was clearly explained about his wife's critical condition, which he understood clearly and signed paper of consent. A team of qualified doctors Dr. (Smt.) Vandana Sethi along with Dr. U.P. Singh (M.D. Anesthesia) and Dr. Vinita Kohli (M.D. Paediatrics) operated the patient. The opposite party has denied allegation made by the complainant that the operation was conducted in haste, resulting failure of operation. The complainant was given Anesthesia by expert in her spine, no oral medicine was given to the patient. The complainant has gave birth to a male child on 27.9.2005, who was having "Foetal distress c meconium present in throat and nose". The pediatrician tried to resuscitate the child, but it could not be revived and declared dead at 9.30 p.m. No negligence was done by the opposite party. It is not true that without complainant's husband's consent, the patient was referred to another hospital. After surgery, the patient went into respiratory depression and needed ventilator support, which was not available anywhere in Rishikesh. For that reason the complainant was referred to Jollygrant Hospital, Dehradun. The opposite party denied the complainant's allegation that at the place where operation was conducted, there was no life saving equipment. It is false to say that due to failure of operation, the patient suffered physical or mental disability. The opposite party stated that no fee was paid by the complainant to the opposite party, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer.

(3.) THE opposite party has filed her two affidavits (paper Nos. 147 and 158), Puri's Sanjivani Hospital's Admission Record of Mrs. Anita -complainant with her husband's consent form (paper No. 206), Puri's Sanjivani Hospital's history sheet (paper No. 207), Treatment/operative notes (paper Nos. 208 and 209), Progress sheet (Paper Nos. 210 and 211), Nurses Medication chart (paper No. 212), Discharge summary (paper No. 214), Literature of Practical Obstetric Problems (paper Nos. 215 to 219), literature of Lee's Synopsis of Anesthesia (paper Nos. 226 to 231).