NEETU SINGH Vs. K K KAKKAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A youthful, fresh and charming woman, just about to embrace the best gift of nature, the motherhood, has, after delivering the child, turned into practically a lump of flesh. How and why has this happened is the only issue involved in this complaint? Is it due to medical negligence of the opposite parties who admittedly have treated the complainant Smt. Neetu Singh, some of whom allegedly have monitored the days of her attaining motherhood while all of whom actively participated in the process of delivery of the child? Or is the present state of the pathetic condition of the complainant due to "pre -eclampsia and then eclampsia" emanating from the process of her motherhood itself?

(2.) BEFORE proceeding further, an apology must be put in black and white for the failure to decide the complaint filed in the year 1993 till about passage of 11 years. Serious questions have arisen, no doubt, but higher Courts exist only to resolve such serious questions. Therefore, that alone may not have been the reason for the delay. The file is full of papers filed by the parties in the shape of written statements, objections, affidavits, counter affidavits, written arguments and obviously several in the shape of applications only. Dates after dates have been consumed. When serious attempt was made to decide the complaint, those serious questions confronted the decision necessitating the imperative need of obtaining experts' opinion in the case before the issues were decided. Parties' Counsels were requested to give names of two experts, one of whom should be dealing with Neurology and another with Obstetrics and Gynaecology. From amongst the names, Dr. Mazhar Hussain, Professor and Head of the Department of Neurosurgery, K.G. Medical College, Lucknow and Dr. (Ms.) Hem Prabha Gupta, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology were requested to guide the Commission with reference to the facts available on the record so that a correct decision may be attempted by the Commission of the vexed questions involved. The Commission is thankful to the two experts for the trouble taken in coming and getting their statements recorded after examining the evidence available.

(3.) MR . Arjun Bhargava and Mr. Vimal Kumar, learned Counsel for the complainant have been heard at extensive length. Mr. Rajesh Chadha and Mr. Anil Bhai on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. S.P. Singh on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and Mr. Vineet Srivastava, on behalf of opposite party No. 4, i.e., Insurance Company said to be covering the risk of third opposite party, have been heard at considerable length. The entire record has been thoroughly scrutinized.