DAKSHABENCOMPLAINANT Vs. YOGINIBEN N PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this complaint, the complainant has prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - and cost of the complaint on following brief allegations of facts.

(2.) THE complainant belonged to Nadiad but was given in marriage to one Mr. Hasmukh Modi of Adipur, Kachchh and she was staying with her husband at Adipur. Her husband has been engaged in the business of running a Government approved fair price shop. At the age of 40 years, she had three daughters -Dipa, Trusha and Mayuri. She once again became pregnant and went to her parental home at Nadiad. She consulted opponent doctor for the purpose of delivery. Ultimately she was admitted to opponents hospital on 28.10.1994. The opponent advised for caesarean operation, as, according to her, normal delivery was not possible. She was accordingly operated on 31.10.1994 and she gave birth to a baby girl. She had abdominal pain after delivery. As the pain increased she informed the opponent doctor who diagnosed excess fat resulting into pain in abdomen. She informed the complainant that by passage of time her pain would subside. Ultimately, on 23.12.1994, her husband had taken her to Adipur. However, her ailment in abdomen continued and her health went on deteriorating. She, therefore, consulted Dr. Paruben Raiyani of Gandhidham. As per her advice, blood, urine, sonography and other tests were carried out. The said doctor informed that some foreign body was left out in the abdomen and it would be necessary to open her abdomen. Dr. Joshi of Gandhidham was also consulted in that respect.

(3.) THE opponent doctor has filed her written statement at Exh. 14, coupled with her affidavit. While denying the allegations contained in the complaint, she asserted that she treated the complainant with fair and reasonable standard and competence expected of a doctor of her class and there was no deficiency in service on her part in the matter of performance of the operation in question. She is an experienced gynaecologist having worked in United Kingdom in Obstetrics/Gynaecology from 1979 to 1986. She has passed MRCOG (London) and holds a prestigious degree. She started her hospital at Nadiad in 1987. According to the opponent, the complainant was admitted in her hospital on 30.10.1994. Caesarean section operation was advised and performed under spinal anaesthesia on 31.10.1994 as the complainant was suffering from severe bronchitis. A female baby was delivered and condition of both mother and the child was normal. The stitches were removed on 7.11.1994 and the operation scars also stood healed. Urine output was also satisfactory. The complainant was discharged from hospital from 7.1.1994. She consulted the opponent doctor on 1.12.1994 for routine checkup with complaint of diarrhoea and vomiting. On examination it was noticed that her abdomen was soft, uterus normal and cervical closed. The complainant informed her that she consulted Dr. Trivedi and X -ray, abdomen scan, blood and urine tests were carried out and they were normal. Opponent doctor prescribed medicines for diarrhoea and instructed her to get herself consulted again if there was no relief by the prescribed medicines. The complainant however never consulted the opponent thereafter. On 15.2.1995 she was served with notice by Anjar Taluka Grahak Suraksha Mandal, Adipur. She gave reply on 16.3.1995. Thus, according to her there was no deficiency in service on her part. The opponent doctor has denied rest of the allegations made by the complainant including the allegation with regard to quantum of compensation generally stated in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ -. The complaint is, therefore, sought to be dismissed with cost.