ROHIT MITTAL Vs. ANNA CHILD CARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals challenge order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, "State Commission") dtd. 19/10/2012 in CC No. 42 of 2007 under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act"). The State Commission considered allegations of medical negligence against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in FA 757/2012 and held them liable to compensate the complainants/appellants. While the appellants have approached this Commission for enhancement of compensation, the respondents seek to be absolved of the liability in FA 771/2012 filed by them. As the facts in the case are similar and emanate from a common order, these appeals will be disposed by way of a common order. For reasons of convenience, the facts are taken from FA 757/2012.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. Respondents contentions in their submission before the State Commission is taken as their final submission.

(3.) The brief conspectus of facts in the case is that appellant 2, wife of appellant 1, was admitted to respondent 4 hospital (Sehat Medicare, Patiala) on 1/11/2005 and delivered a premature male child (appellant 3) on 2/11/2005. As the respondent 4 hospital was not equipped for providing neonatal care to a premature baby, she was discharged on 6/11/2005 and admitted to respondent 1 hospital (Anna Child Care, Patiala) situated above the respondent 4 hospital under the care of Dr Harinder Pal Singh and Dr Anil Jeet Arora, respondents 2 and 3. While in the care of the respondent 1 hospital, appellants consulted Dr Balbir Singh, an eye specialist regarding the eyesight of the appellant 3. According to the respondents, Dr Balbir Singh examined the baby on 4/12/2005 and 31/12/2005 and opined that the appellant 3 was suffering from treatable Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) and advised to approach the PGI, Chandigarh. At the time of discharge from the respondent hospital on 30/12/2005, appellants were advised an eye check-up for appellant 3. On consulting Dr M.K. Dogra at PGI, Chandigarh, the diagnosis conveyed to the appellants was that the baby had developed Zone 1 Stage 4B Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) and it was advised to go for laser treatment. The appellants rushed to the LV Prasad Institute, Hyderabad on 2/1/2006 and consulted respondent 6, Dr Subhadra Jalali who was considered an expert in ROP issues. After examinations on 3/1/2006 and 6/1/2006, surgery was done on 14/1/2006. While the eyesight of the child was saved, he is required to wear spectacles of power in excess of 20 for the rest of his life and requires frequent and regular follow up. Alleging medical negligence by the respondents 1,2 and 3, appellants moved the State Commission praying for compensation of Rs.99.00 lakhs with costs. The respondents have also approached the State Commission praying for the setting aside of this order as unjustified. As both the complaints emanate from the same order, they are being disposed by a common order.