DR. KUSUM SABHARWAL Vs. SANGEETA AGGARWAL & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 5. 3. 2013 passed in first appeal No. 833 of 2010 by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the appeal of Dr. Kusum Sabharwal and the insurance company, was dismissed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) Saini Enclave, Delhi directing the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith costs of Rs. 5,000/-, was upheld.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 15. 3. 2008, the complainant, Sangeeta Aggarwal approached Tarawati Ramgopal Mehra Charitable Medical Centre (herein referred as 'medical centre')/OP-1 and consulted Dr. Kusum Sabharwal/OP- After examination, ultrasound study (USG) and pregnancy test, it was found that the patient had pregnancy. The patient wanted to get her pregnancy terminated. Accordingly, after written consent, Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) was performed by OP-2 at OP-1/Medical Centre on the same day. The patient was discharged with medication. After 15 days, the patient visited the OP-2 again, with the complaint of abdominal pain. USG was performed at OP-1 by the Sonologist Dr. Rajesh Malhotra. It was reported as normal, therefore, patient was treated symptomatically and advised to consult immediately in case of any problem again. But, the complainant had pain in abdomen and uneasiness after MTP. It was alleged that OP 2 ignored her complaints and also failed to diagnose the root cause of pain, also declined to meet the complainant and her husband. Therefore, on 28. 3. 2008, the complainant and her husband consulted another Gynecologist, who advised to go back once again to the same doctor for further thorough check-up and advise. Accordingly, on 31. 3. 2008, the complainant again consulted OP-2, who referred her for USG and thereafter without proper examination, she was sent back to the home. On 1. 4. 2008, the complainant fell down in her house and she was taken immediately to St. Stephen Hospital in critical condition.

(3.) Both the OPs filed their written version and denied the allegations. OP-1 contended that this centre is a charitable centre and does not make any profit, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. OP-2 had not been employed by OP-1 for providing any medical services as she is a visiting consultant only. The medical treatment was the choice of the complainant, accordingly, she opted to consult Dr. Kusum Sabharwal/OP-2. The OP-2 filed separate written statement and denied the allegation of carelessness or negligence. It is submitted that OP-1 is an authorized centre of Government of India for MTP. The MTP was legally performed after conducting all necessary tests. On 28. 2008, the complainant consulted Dr. Meghna Kulkarni, who also did not think about ectopic pregnancy. Even the repeat USG done on 31. 2008 did not visualize ectopic pregnancy. Thus, it was not a negligence or deviation from the standard medical practice.