RAJ KUMAR VISHVE Vs. VANDANA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 29. 11. 2006 of M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal allowing Appeal Nos. 2237/2005 filed by respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 and 159/2006 preferred by respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 and dismissing Appeal No. 2216/2005 filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 25. 11. 2005 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to both the respondents to jointly and severally pay amount of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 6,000 towards the expenses incurred in treatment and other expenses to the petitioner.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Gynaecologist has been running clinic under the name of Om Shanti Clinic at Katni. Respondent No. 2 has been running hospital - Maa Durga Chikitsalaya at Katni. It was alleged that Anuradha, wife of petitioner expected delivery of a child on or before 8. 1. 2005. She visited the clinic of respondent No. 1 on 24. 12. 2004 and was prescribed certain medicines and blood test. Anuradha was taken to respondent No. 1's clinic on 14. 1. 2005 around 11. 00 p. m. for delivery. On 15. 1. 2005 at about 9. 00 a. m. caesarean section was performed on her at the hospital of respondent No. 2 and she delivered a female child. Since her bleeding did not stop, hysterectomy was done by respondent No. 1. Thereafter, Anuradha was referred to Dr. Anil Gupta, a Cardio Vascular Surgeon at Jabalpur and while she was on way to Jabalpur she died. Alleging medical negligence, the petitioner filed complaint seeking certain reliefs against both the respondents which was contested by filing written version (s) by them. It was alleged that Post Partum Hemorrhage suffered by Anuradha was as a result of prolonged labour which she had to suffer for want of timely consent for LSCS by the petitioner. Consent for caesarean section was sought on 15. 1. 2005 around 12. 30 a. m. but was given around 8. 30 a. m. on 16. 1. 2005 by the petitioner. Post Partum Hemorrhage was tried to be controlled firstly by conservative treatment and then by hysterectomy which was performed by respondent No. 1 with the help of four experienced surgeons of the town namely Dr. A. K. Singh, Dr. Deepak Saxena, Dr. Harchandani and Dr. V. K. Gupta. It was not denied that Mrs. Anuradha was referred to Cardio Vascular Surgeon at Jabalpur as her bleeding did not stop and she died on way to Jabalpur. On admission, we have heard Mr. A. P. Dhamija for the petitioner.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that when all efforts to have normal delivery failed, the respondent No. 1 had sought consent for caesarean section of Anuradha around 12. 30 a. m. on 15. 1. 2005 and it was only eight hours thereafter that around 8. 30 a. m. on 16. 1. 2005 consent was given by the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid plea taken in written version, the respondent No. 1 filed the affidavits by way of evidence of Dr. Deepak Saxena, Dr. V. K. Gupta and Dr. R. Harchandani in addition to her affidavit. Admittedly, petitioner did not file affidavit of any expert doctor in support of respondent No. 1 being negligent in performing caesarean section on Anuradh nor he chose to cross-examine either Dr. Deepak Saxena or Dr. V. K. Gupta or Dr. R. Harchandani. Having considered the unrebutted affidavits of these doctors and the medical literature referred to in the order of State Commission we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error within the meaning of Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the order under challenge. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.