JAGNARAYAN LAL Vs. GIRIJA TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Buxar Bihar (hereinafter referred to as ˜the District Forum for short) has filed the present Revision Petition against Order dated 07.12.2005 in Appeal No. 662 of 2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as ˜the State Commission for short whereby the State Commission has allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order of the District Forum. The District Forum, in its Order, had held the respondent to be guilty of medical negligence and deficient in service and has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: -

(3.) AFTER service of notice, respondent appeared and filed its Written Objections stating that she had not charged any fees from the complainant as the patient was known to her and, because she had not charged any fees, the patient was not a ˜consumer under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ˜the Act for short). That she is a qualified lady Doctor having long experience and she had examined the patient and prescribed medicines like iron, calcium and protein, which is usually prescribed to a pregnant patient to supplement her diet. On 14.02.2002, the patient had complained about bleeding for the first time and, therefore, she advised her for ultrasound and also prescribed some medicines for safety of foetus and also of the patient. That in the ultrasound report, there was no clear sign about the miscarriage of the foetus in the womb and so she suggested the patient to wait for 2 days but thereafter the patient did not come to her. That the patient was taken to Patna where she was operated upon by Dr. Jha. That the patient did not follow her advice. That she had prescribed only those medicines which are advised to the pregnant ladies. According to the medical jurisprudence, if a child dies and remains in the womb even for a month, there is no adverse effect to the health of the mother. That the allegation of negligence on the part of the respondent was without substance. That she advised the medicines on the basis of the ultrasound report and on her clinical examination. That in the ultrasound report there was no clear indication that the child had died in the womb or any immediate operation was needed. She adopted the line of treatment which is prescribed treatment under the medical science. That it is a different matter that some other Doctor adopted some other line of treatment but that does not prove her negligence in giving treatment to the patient.