POONAM MANGLA Vs. PREM NATH HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the complainant who is petitioner before us. Her complaint of alleged medical negligence qua the respondent, was allowed by the District Forum and she was awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Both the complainant and the respondent-opposite party Prem Nath Hospital through Dr. (Mrs.) K. Bala went in appeal before the State Commission, one for the enhancement of the compensation and the other for dismissal of the complaint. While the opposite party succeeded in appeal, complainant failed. State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, complainant has come before us.

(2.) Complainant was pregnant. She went to Dr. (Mrs.) K. Bala of Prem Nath Hospital Gurgaon for checkup and was advised routine checkup at regular intervals so that her blood pressure could be stabilised by better monitoring. However, complainant approached Dr. Bala on 10.12.1992 when she was carrying seven months pregnancy. She was having blood pressure of 170/130. Dr. Bala advised premature delivery. Complainant gave birth to a girl child weighing 1.250 kgs. on the following day. Complainant said that on 12.12.1992 when condition of the baby deteriorated she was advised by Dr. Bala that the baby could be shifted to Kalawati Children Hospital, Delhi which has better medical facilities like incubator etc. which were readily available. Husband of the complainant then went to the Kalawati Children Hospital but found that no incubator, was available there. He shifted the baby to Pushpanjali Hospital at Gurgaon where arrangement of incubator was available. Baby was admitted at Pushpanjali Hospital on 12.12.1992 at about 2.40 p.m. Her condition, however, could not improve and she expired on 13.12.1992 at 7.00 a.m. On these allegations it is alleged that the respondent-opposite party was deficient in service.

(3.) It is contended before us that absence of incubator itself in the Hospital would be deficiency in service. However, there was no other evidence before the District Forum except that of the complainant. On the other hand three doctors were produced in evidence namely, Dr. Vanita Bhatnagar, Obstetrics and Gynaecologist of Civil Hospital, Dr. (Lt. Col.) Yash Puri and Dr. Jai Kishan Yadav who testified that though at the time of delivery facility of incubator was useful but in the absence of incubator temperature could well be maintained by other means by radiant heat warmers, hot water bottles and cotton pads, etc. They do not support the complainant that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in treating the child who was prematurely delivered. Holding that there could not be said that respondent was negligent in providing medical service, State Commission dismissed the complaint. The fact remains that complainant was not regular in Ante Natal checkup. She consulted only one month before actual delivery of the baby. She was admitted in labour with high blood pressure. Child was prematurely born and weighed only 1.250 kgs. Baby was referred to better hospital for further management after initial stabilisation. It could not, therefore, be said that there was any negligence on the part of the opposite party - attending doctor. We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.