K.K.JAISWAL Vs. AMRIK KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.09.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 873/2011, "Dr. K.K. Jaiswal & Anr. versus Amrik Kaur", vide which appeal against the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal, allowing the consumer complaint in question, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are running a clinic-cum-hospital under the name Navjeevan Hospital and Maternity Home at Hafed Road, Cheeka, District Kaithal Haryana. It has been alleged by the complainant that she became pregnant and had been taking treatment from this hospital from the very beginning. She was taken to the hospital on 8.01.2004, when her labour pains started. The Doctors were fully aware that she had history of previous lower segment caesarean section, but still, the doctors gave her trial of labour, despite regular severe pain. They treated her in a routine and negligent manner and ultimately, she was taken to the labour room, where she gave birth to a female child at 4:30 AM on 09.01.2004. She started having excessive bleeding and her uterus was ruptured. The petitioner/OP advised her husband to go to some other Doctor, but because of her bad condition, they requested the petitioner not to discharge her. However, she was still discharged by the OP hospital and was taken to Mittal Nursing Home on 09.01.2004. She was given blood transfusion in that hospital, but ultimately, her uterus had to be removed. The complainant remained admitted at Mittal Nursing Home till 19.01.2004. The complainant has stated that they made repeated requests to the respondent/OP to compensate her sufficiently on account of mental harassment etc., but they ignored their requests. She then filed consumer complaint in question demanding compensation of Rs. 5 lakh from them.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the respondent/OP is that pre-natal treatment was obtained by the complainant from the respondents, but the delivery was never conducted in their hospital. The complainant was brought to the hospital on 09.01.2004 at 4 AM, when the delivery had already taken place at their village by some Dhai (midwife). The complainant was examined by the respondent, and it was found to be a case of PPH (Post Partem Haemorrhage). The petitioner/OP provided the packing etc. to the complainant and referred her to Kaithal for further necessary treatment. Since the complainant was bleeding profusely at that time, the petitioner filled a form with regard to requisition of blood for her. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum vide their order dated 30.05.2011 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/OP to pay Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant as damages towards physical disability, mental agony, financial loss, harassment etc. and also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. An appeal filed by the present petitioners before the State Commission was also dismissed vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.