DILIP KUMAR SINHA Vs. ABHINEET NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of complainant of Complaint No. 63/2000 in brief is that for his pregnant wife Mrs. Sunita Sinha he consulted Dr. Anita Sinha, opposite party No. 2 who along with her husband runs a Nursing Home under the name and style Abhineet Nursing Home (O.P. No. 1) and her husband (O.P. No. 3) also works with her. The first consultation was done on 27.3.1997 and thereafter required monthly check up which was taken per advice and expected date of delivery was 29th September, 1997. Annexure-I is prescription dated 25.8.1997. On 22.9.1997 complainant was advised for ultrasound of his wife and after seeing ultrasound report the O.P. No. 2 told that position of child was not normal and the patient already operated twice earlier for the purpose of delivery, therefore, O.P. No. 2 this time also advised surgical operation for delivery and surgical operation was performed on 25.9.1997 by O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 giving birth to a female child; that during operation O.P. No. 3 came out from O.T. and enquired from complainant that will he like family planning operation of the patient because in the light of earlier operation she will have to undergo again the operation for delivering the child putting her life on risk upon which complainant signed the risk bond and on demand agreed to pay extra fee and complainant also gave his consent for family planning operation and signed the risk bond supplied by O.P. No. 3 and then the O.P. No. 3 went back in his O.T. Prescription dated 30.9.1997 (Discharge slip) has been annexed as Annexure I/A.

(2.) That on 13.6.2002 wife of complainant complained pain in stomach and consulted O.P. No. 2 who advised ultrasound which was done on 16.6.2002 and it transpired that there was fifteen weeks child in her womb, Annexures-III and IIIA are prescription dated 13.6.2006 and ultrasound report dated 16.6.2002, that though O.Ps. advised for abortion but complainant's mother refused and, therefore the patient has to give birth to a child at great risk of her life; that the complainant and his wife were burdened with an unwanted child due to negligence of O.Ps. and, therefore, complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 8.5 lakh on various accounts (no detail).

(3.) The case of complainant of Complaint No. 71/2002 who is wife of complainant of Complaint No. 63/2002 is similar. According to her, she and her mother-in-law went to O.P. on 25.9.1997 and asked the doctor to perform family planning operation, also during the course of caesarean operation for delivery, that later on her husband also told her about giving consent for family planning operation.