VINOD PRASAD NAUTIYAL Vs. SAVITRI UNIYAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint has been filed by Sh. Vinod Prasad Nautiyal for recovery of Rs. 12,20,000/ - as compensation and cost of litigation on the death of Smt. Uma Nautiyal, wife of the complainant due to the medical negligence of the opposite parties.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant got the check up of his wife done at the residence of opposite party No. 1 in the month of December, 1992 because for the last few months his wife was not having menses. The opposite party No. 1 charged fee of Rs. 50/ - for the check up from the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that after some time the menstruation will start and told that there is swelling in the uterus and for that 10 injections are required for recovery. On the advice of opposite party No. 1, the wife of the complainant got 10 injections and also told to the opposite party No. 1 that if there is any child in the womb, she would like to abort it but the opposite party with full assurance told that there is no child in the womb. The complainant is a lawyer by profession. From 25th December to 31st January, there are winter vacations in the Civil Courts of Pauri. The sister of the wife of the complainant is a teacher in Narendra Nagar. The complainant used to leave his wife and children at Narendra Nagar every year in winters because in Pauri there is too much cold. On 25th December, 1992 the complainant left his wife at Narendra Nagar. When the menstruation did not start, the complainant took his wife to famous lady doctor Dr. Kutti of Sivanand Ashram, Rishikesh on 14.1.1993. Dr. Kutti told that there is pregnancy of two months. Dr. Kutti even on request did not advise for abortion and told that now the abortion could not be done and it is now too late, at the beginning this could have been done easily. Dr. Kutti got some tests done on the same day. Dr. Kutti advised some medicines and advised for regular check -up.

(3.) THE complainant took his wife to Dr. Kutti from time to time. On 12th April, 1993 and 17th June 1993 also Dr. Kutti examined his wife. On 3rd May, 1993 the complainant got her examined at the residence of opposite party No. 1. On 3rd May, 1993 the opposite party No. 1 prescribed that there is pregnancy of 30 weeks and the date of delivery was informed as 31st July, 1993 and charged a sum of Rs. 100/ - from the complainant. On 14th May, 1993 the opposite party No. 1 advised the complainant for ultrasound of his wife from Dr. Khanduri of Dehradun because at that time the period of pregnancy could not be determined. She also gave a letter for Dr. Khanduri. On 14th May, 1993 the opposite party No. 1 told that there is pregnancy of 34 weeks. On 16th June, 1993 the complainant got the ultrasound of his wife as per the advice of opposite party from Dr. Khanduri of Dehradun and showed the report to opposite party No. 1. On 28th June, 1993 at 9.30 p.m. the complainant took his wife to the residence of opposite party No. 1 because his wife was having loose motion and in the morning the complainant had to take his wife to DehraDun. The opposite party No. 1 examined his wife and prescribed some medicines. On that day the opposite party No. 1 told that there is pregnancy of 30 -32 weeks and said that the child will born after more than 2 months. She also advised for some tests and ultrasound at Dehradun. The complainant after being satisfied brought his wife to the home that according to the advice of opposite party No. 1, the child will born after more than 2 months. On 28th June 1993 at 12.00 a.m., the wife of the complainant complained about some pain in her waist. The complainant took his wife to the residence of opposite party No. 1 by walking. The sister of the wife of the complainant was also with them. The opposite party No. 1 again checked up his wife and after consulting with his husband, opposite party No. 2, told the complainant that get your wife admitted in the hospital , they will operate her. The expenditure there will be less than Dehradun. They also threatened the complainant that there can be danger to the life of his wife, if she is not immediately admitted.