SANJEEV KUMAR ALIAS PAPPU KUMAR Vs. BIRENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the complainant filed the complaint with a prayer for compensation of Rs.19,96,301 only against the OPdoctors for negligence and deficiency in medical service rendered by them as detailed in the paragraph-11 of the complaint.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that sister of the complainant namely Manju Devi (wife of Raj Kumar Prasad) had third pregnancy and in the month of May 2001 she came to Patna from Ara and was residing with the complainant for safe and comfortable delivery. OP Nos.1 and 2 are doctors who have jointly established their private clinic at Ashok Nagar, Kankerbagh, Patna in the name and style of M/s. Kumar Clinic and Maternity Centre (OP No.3 ). It is alleged that OP Nos.1 and 2 lured the complainant for keeping his sister Manju Devi under their treatment and they assured that their maternity centre is one of the well equipped and well managed centres in Patna town. They also assured that they would take the best possible care both before and after delivery with providing best medical facilities. The complainant being lured and induced by OP Nos.1 and 2 got his sister examined by OP Nos.1 and 2 on 5th May, 2001. They advised for ultrasonography and accordingly the first ultrasonography of his sister's foetus was done in Maurya X-ray at Kankerbagh and as per report everything was normal. O. P. Nos.1 and 2 again advised for second ultrasonography of his sister which was done on 11.10.2001 in the said Maurya X-ray Centre, Patna and this report also showed that everything was normal and correct. His sister was in continuous medical treatment and care of the O. P. from 5.5.2001 to 9.11.2001. Annexures 1 to 5 has been filed in support of the above contention.

(3.) It is further case of the complainant that on 5.11.2001 labour pains started to his sister and he brought his sister to O. P. No.3 where O. P. Nos.1 and 2 admitted her and performed the caesarean (L. S. C. S.) operation without taking consent of the complainant or any guardian and a male child was delivered at 10.30 p. m. to her on 5.11.2001. The two children born to his sister earlier were by normal delivery. In the opinion of the complainant there was no need of caesarean operation to his sister for the third delivery but without any valid reason his consent was done. It is further alleged that after the operation bleeding from her uterus and internal part of the body started excessively and her condition deteriorated. This fact was not disclosed by O. P. Nos.1 and 2 to the complainant. The complainant made repeated request about the condition of his sister and also suggested them that if required she may be shifted to some better clinic under a qualified and eminent doctor for better treatment but both the O. Ps. did not listen to his advice and assured that she is in perfect condition.