ANTANU DUTTA Vs. MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Rupa Dutta (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient'), during her 2nd pregnancy, was under Ante Natal Care (ANC) of Dr. Raj Bokaria, a Gynaecologist, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No. 2') in Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the 'Moolchand Hospital / Opposite Party No. 1'). She was healthy, except for some history of Asthma and was under treatment of Dr. S. K. Jain, Chest Physician at Moolchand Hospital itself. On 2/7/2003 at the 14th week of pregnancy, Dr. Ashok Khurana, a Radiologist, performed USG and reported it as normal. Thereafter, as advised by the Opposite Party No. 2, Foetal Echo-Cardiography (ECHO) was performed by Dr. Ashok Khurana at 24th week on 12/9/2003. It revealed obliterated umbilical artery, but there was no developmental anomaly and no signs of intra-uterine growth retardation (IUGR) of the foetus. On 14/9/2003, after going through the ECHO report, the Opposite Party No. 2 advised foetal chromosomal test from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. It was performed without delay and its report was available after two weeks. Thereafter, on 30/9/2003 at 26th week, 3rd USG was performed by Dr. Ashok Khurana and it reported as:

(2.) The deceased - Dr. Rupa was a Specialist doctor with Government of NCT of Delhi working as a senior resident till October 2003 in LBS Hospital. The Complainants lost two lives i.e. mother at young age of 32 years and the new born. Both died due to alleged illegal abortion and lack of care and expertise of treating doctors at the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. Being aggrieved by the death of Dr. Rupa, her husband Atanu Dutta an employee of NTPC, his minor daughter Anuprupa and in-laws of the deceased (parents of husband) filed the Consumer Complaint before this Commission. The Complainants prayed for total compensation of Rs.3.00 Crore. Separately, they also filed Complaint before Delhi Medical Council (DMC) in 2004 and Appeal before Medical Council of India (MCI). An FIR No. 126 of 2012 was lodged against the treating doctors under Sec. 304A/34 IPC at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

(3.) The Opposite Parties filed their respective written versions and denied any negligence during treatment. The preliminary objection of maintainability was raised contending that as the patient was a professional colleague, no charges were collected. Thus, she was not a Consumer. They also filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits.