NIRMALA Vs. USHA SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant has come up in appeal against the order dated 22nd July, 1994 passed by District Forum, Kurukshetra, whereby her complaint against Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Sethi of Sethi Nursing Home, Ladwa has been dismissed as no deficiency in service on the part of Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Sethi has been established by the complainant while treating her on 12th August, 1993. According to the complainant, she approached the respondent Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Sethi on 12th August, 1993 since she was feeling some pain in her stomach as she was having pregnancy of about two months. Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Sethi administered certain medicines, but neither swelling nor pain or bleeding could be estopped. Thereafter the complainant went to some other Doctor, namely Dr. Madan of Payal Nursing Home, Kurukshetra, from where she went further to take treatment in P. G. I. , Chandigarh, where she remained admitted for about two weeks i. e. from 18th August, 1993 to 31st August, 1993. In all this process, she got her pregnancy terminated prematurely as also lost eyesight. All this, according to the complainant was the result of the wrong treatment and the medicines administered by the respondent - Dr. Usha Sethi.

(2.) In reply, the respondent has pleaded that when the complainant came to her clinic on 12th August, 1993 she was already profusely bleeding and on an enquiry she had disclosed that a couple of days ago, her husband had himself attempted abortion of her two months' old pregnancy. Since it was a surgical case, the complainant referred it to Payal Nursing Home, Kurukshetra, as in her clinic at Ladwa she was not having adequate arrangement for surgery. The allegations regarding any deficiency in service or wrong medical treatment, etc. have been stoutly denied. On the aforesaid factual position and after consideration of record relating to P. G. I. Chandigarh, learned District Forum found that the complainant was already having bleeding due to attempt made for terminating the pregnancy before the complainant approached the respondent for treatment.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any cogent ground to disagree with the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum. In fact, no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the complainant-appellant to substantiate the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-Doctor. There being no legal infirmity in the decision of the learned District Forum, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.