K.K. KAKKAR Vs. NEETU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeals No. 156 of 2004 and 163 of 2004 have been filed by Dr. K.K. Kakkar, Dr. Mrs. Kakkar and Dr. Vijay Singhal respectively against order dated 12.03.2004 of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "the State Commission") passed in Complaint No. 351 of 1993. The State Commission vide the impugned order held them guilty of medical negligence in the treatment and medical care of Smt. Neetu Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant/Patient") during delivery of her child and directed them to pay Rs.9,00,000/- (i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid by each of the three Opposite Parties).

(2.) FACTS :

(3.) On being served, Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 3 filed their detailed written statements and denied the allegations of medical negligence. According to them, the Complainant/Patient was admitted to the Nursing Home of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 at 6.30 pm on 25.05.1993 with labour pains and diagnosed with pre-eclampsia, which was evident from the high blood pressure, protein in the urine and swelling of the feet duly recorded in the bed head ticket. This potentially serious condition was medically managed by Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, who are highly qualified Doctors, in their well-equipped Nursing Home. On 26.05.1993 at about 7.10 am it was noted that there were symptoms of fetal distress and since any delay in the delivery would have adverse complications for both the Complainant/Patient and the fetus, a cesarean section was performed after taking the consent of the relatives of the Complainant/Patient. While the Complainant/Patient was on the operation table and before being administered anesthesia, she had eclamptic convulsions and vomiting, which was controlled and throat suction was done. Anesthesia was administered by Opposite Party No.3, a qualified Anesthetist. The cesarean section was successfully completed and the baby was taken out at 8.13 am. Thereafter the Complainant/Patient was shifted to the recovery room with oxygen. Because of delayed recovery from anesthesia two Specialists Dr. Ajit Sawhney, MD (Medicine) and Dr. Pankaj Bansal, who was called by the relatives of the Complainant/Patient were consulted, and who after seeing the Patient endorsed in writing that the medical treatment by the Opposite Parties was in order and should continue. Her present condition was, therefore, attributed to the fact that the relatives of the Complainant/Patient took her away without informing the Opposite Parties and without the required ambulatory and oxygen support during transit. By way of preliminary objections, it was stated by the Opposite Parties that since the Complainant/Patient had paid no consideration for the treatment, the complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, it was bad in law since no expert evidence had been produced to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. It was also stated that since the complaint had been signed and verified by father of the Complainant/Patient and not by her, it was not maintainable since her father is not a 'consumer' within the purview of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act since neither any goods had been sold nor had he hired the services from the Opposite Parties.