SUJATHA SELVAKUMAR Vs. K.LATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 : Complainant filed a complaint claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the loss mental agony and sufferings due to the negligence of opposite parties regarding the delivery of the child and for the costs.

(2.) The complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 15.1.2001 at the clinic at Chidambaram for consultation for treatment for the expected delivery of her child after having initial examination at Chennai. The complainant used to have the consultation and treatment with the 1st opposite party after consulting on 15.1.01 regular tests were taken and having gestational diabetic case, 1st opposite party instructed to have routine check up for every 15 days. Accordingly she had the check up on 4.2.2001, 14.2.01, 6.3.01, 16.3.01 and on 20.3.2001 and during those checkups her weight was taken in all as 72 kgs, 73 kgs, 73 kgs, 72 kgs and 79 kgs respectively. But it was replied by the 1st opposite party regarding the weight of 79 kgs on 20.3.01 it was wrongly mentioned due to clerical error. Since the expected delivery day was given as 23.3.01, the complainant approached 1st opposite party on 20.3.01 for admission for the delivery. The 1st opposite party stated as there was no labour pain and asked to take scan on 24.3.01 and after taking the scan on 24.3.01 the result was not furnished to the complainant and retained purposely to conceal her negligence and on 28.3.2001 only after 8 days of delay caesarean was conducted. But because of delay the child died immediately after it was born. The complainant also had infection due to unhygienic conditions and lack of proper facilities that prevailed in the clinic of the opposite party. If the caesarean operation was performed as early as on 20.3.01, the death of the child would not have occurred and the 1st opposite party failed and neglected to give proper advise and also failed to perform the duties to the complainant by simply blaming the complainant as if she had neglected their service. Hence after giving legal notice dated 18.11.01 the complainant came forward with this consumer complaint claiming above reliefs.

(3.) The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant in their written version except to state that the complainant was admitted for delivery and the 1st opposite party exercised reasonable care and skill in diagnosing the Gynacity problem in performing the appropriate treatment in providing care and advise to the complainant. There was no deficiency on their part. The complainant was advised to admit even on 16.3.01 since he was a diabetic patient on 23.3.01 also to advise for admission. But she got admitted only on 26.3.01 and after admitting labour pain was induced to deliver the child normally and then only caesarean operation has performed on 28.3.2001. The new born child of the complainant suffered from mal formation in the head and anus which were shown to the complainant and her relatives. The diabetic mothers do have babies with congenial mal formations and the presence of those mal formations in the child of the complaint is the probable cause of death. These crucial facts were suppressed by the complainant in her complaint. Regarding the legal notice proper reply was given and mentioning of weight as 73 kgs on 23.3.01 as wrongly noted as 79 kgs within 4 days no person could gain 7 kgs of weight and thereby the complaint to be dismissed as not maintainable.