GIRJA KOTHA KOAL Vs. J.K. TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 15.01.2008, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 26/04, "J.K. Tripathi & Ors. versus Dr. Girja Kotha Koal", vide which the order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, dismissing the consumer complaint in question, was set aside and the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants/respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that J.K. Tripathi and his wife Kusum Tripathi had been visiting the clinic of the petitioner/OP Dr. Girja Kotha Koal regarding some gynae problems of complainant no. 2 Kusum Tripathi. In October 1999, the complainant no. 2 showed indication of positive pregnancy and since then, she had been regularly visiting the said clinic along with her husband. On 22.03.2000, she felt mild pain in her stomach, whereupon she visited the clinic of the petitioner and explained the problem to the Doctor. It has been alleged that the Doctor did not apply her mind diligently as she was busy in abortion cases. She advised that there was infection in the urine and it was not a labour pain. However, on 23.3.2000 at 2:00 am, i.e., a few hours after visiting the clinic, the complainant no. 2 developed unbearable pain, but the petitioner could not be contacted and consequently, complainant no. 2 was taken to St. Stephens Hospital where she delivered a pre-mature child, after seven months of pregnancy. The child had to be kept on incubation for the next 57 days, during which the complainant suffered mental agony, harassment and emotional suffering. Their two other children also suffered due to engagement of the complainants with the hospital. The complainants demanded a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- through the consumer complaint filed before the District Forum. The petitioner on the other hand stated that pre-mature delivery is not a rare phenomena at all and its occurrence in the instant case cannot be taken as evidence of medical negligence. The pre-mature delivery can occur due to various reasons. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, dismissed the consumer complaint, saying that the OPs had not been found guilty of any negligence. However, the State Commission allowed the appeal against the order of the District Forum and directed the present petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had taken extra care to ensure that pre-mature delivery does not take place but such cases had been occurring worldwide and hence, in the instant case, it could not be stated that there was any negligence on the part of the Doctor. Learned counsel further stated that the District Forum had reached the right conclusion and dismissed the complaint in question. Further, the petitioner had been prescribing medicines to complainant no. 2 from time to time, but the complainants had not visited the clinic after 4.1.2000 for follow-up of the treatment. Learned counsel stated that the petitioner was running a clinic and not a nursing home and she had advised the complainant to get herself registered with a Government or Private Hospital for proper and regular ante-natal check-up and delivery. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to copies of medical literature in support of her version.