SHRIMATI KULWINDER KAUR Vs. KIRANPREET KAUR MAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Kapurthala on June 20, 1996 dismissed complaint filed by Smt. Kulwinder Kaur that she is in appeal.

(2.) Kulwinder Kaur claimed Rs.4,77,000/as per details given in the complaint from the opposite parties. Dr. Kiran Preet Kaur and others for negligently handling her case of delivery of a child that she had to suffer meningitis on account of wrong administration spinal anaesthesia before the caesarian operation for delivery of the child was done. The other minor grouse was that she was not properly treated by the other doctors and nurses of Makker Hospital and Maternity Home where she was admitted. Different opposite parties while contesting the complaint filed different written statements inter alia denying allegations of the complainant and further denying their liability to make good the loss. Evidence was produced on affidavits, consideration of which resulted in passing of the impugned order. The District Forum formulated the following questions for adjudication : (i) Whether present complaint against the medical practitioner is not maintainable? (ii) Whether respondent No.3 who has acted as nurse at the time of the operation could be held liable for the alleged negligence? (iii) Whether there was any deficiency in service rendered by the respondents, if so? (iv) To what relief complainant is entitled?

(3.) Question No.1 was decided in favour of complainant in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in "indian Medical Association V/s. V. P. Shantha, 1995 3 CPJ 1. It was held that the medical service was not rendered free of costs. Question No.2 was decided against the complainant holding that staff nurse, opposite party No.3 was not to be held liable. Question No.3 was also decided against the complainant for want of expert evidence. The complainant had failed to prove any negligent act on the part of the doctors of Makker Hospital in treating the complainant. There was thus no deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties. Ultimately, it was held that the complainant was not entitled to any compensation that the complaint was dismissed. In appeal vide order dated March 27, 1997, it was ordered to record statement of Dr. B. S. Khurana of Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital (for short 'dmc') as the complainant after discharge from the Makker Hospital against medical advice was admitted in DMC and treated by Dr. Khurana. The statement of Dr. Khurana was recorded, who was cross examined by the opposite parties. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In appeal, the only point argued by Counsel for the parties relates to question No.3 i. e. negligence on the part of the opposite parties in rendering medical service to the complainant.