MUKESH PREMCHAND GURNANI Vs. PRADEEP PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants in Complaint No.197/2003 had challenged the correctness of the rejection order dated 3.2.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane whereby prayer to issue witness summons is rejected.

(2.) We heard Mr. S. K. Bhatia, Advocate for the applicants. None present for the respondent.

(3.) Applicant No.1 is the husband of applicant No.2. Applicant No.2 was pregnant. The applicants were advised to approach O. P. for Ultra Sonography for Gravid Uterus. The O. P. performed Ultra Sonography on applicant No.2 and gave report on 29.6.2002 that a single viable focus was seen in vertex presentation with good cardiac activity and foetal movements. After delivery, major congenital anomaly namely 'meningo myclocele' was found in the lumber region of the baby. The baby expired later on. The applicants, therefore, attributed serious medical negligence to the O. P. and filed Consumer Complaint No.197/2003 against O. P. The applicants tried their level best to procure expert opinion. However, no doctor was ready to give adverse opinion against the O. P. who is also a doctor. Therefore, applicants moved the Forum below by their application and asked thereby to issue summons to any Gynaecologist in the Government Hospital as an Expert to give his opinion. The Forum below rejected the application on the ground that the name and address of the expert is not provided by the applicants.