LAWS(MPCDRC)-2008-12-2

FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs. PINKY HIVRADE

Decided On December 23, 2008
FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
Pinky Hivrade Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the medical institute and its doctors have assailed the order dated 27.11.2006 of the District Forum, Indore passed in C.C. No. 606/2004, whereby the appellants have been saddled with the liability in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to respondent No. 1 (complainant) on account of their medical negligence. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 1 became pregnant and developed some disorder for which she contacted appellant No.1 the Family Planning Association of India and there she was inserted Copper -T by appellant No. 2 Dr.Bharti Patidar. It appears that Copper -T developed infection and, therefore, she had to go to M.Y. Hospital. Indore for further treatment. Though learned Counsel for appellant No. 2 submits that sonography was done after two days and no infection was found, we have considered the notes of M.Y. Hospital, Indore, which clearly manifest that patient underwent exploratory laproto my with the consent for removal of uterus as per requirement. On opening the abdomen multiple loops of intestine were found to be adherent to uterus and left adenexa. On releasing the intestinal loops from adenexa collected pus released. Similarly, on releasing the intestinal loops from uterus a perforation on right side of the isthmas was found along with 150cc of collected pus. Though the learned Counsel for appellants disputes the conclusion mentioned in the report of M.Y.Hospital, Indore we are quite sure that it is based on other surgical notes. The notes also show that the uterus was infected and fragile.

(2.) TO cut short the long story the question for adjudication is whether this operation was performed by Dr. BhartiPatidar and the amount was paid.

(3.) IN order to prove that the appellant No.1 charges fee, reliance has been placed on Exhibit P -11 in which registration fees of Rs. 1C has been charged from Lata Rajesh. The complainant has not been able to produce even such a registration receipt evidencing payment of Rs. 10 for registration.