KUSUM LATA Vs. RAJ 3D SCANS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in CC/74/2012 dated 03.02.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short "the State Commission"?), the Complainants preferred this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"?). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was no case of medical negligence made out against Opposite Parties.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the Complaints, husband and wife parents of two school going children approached the Opposite Parties to ensure trouble free delivery of their child and proper medical care for the mother. It was averred that ultrasound scan done by the first Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Scanning Centre"?) dated 11.2.2011 did not show any abnormalities in the feotus. It was stated that the treating doctor at the second Opposite Party Nursing Home to whom the report was shown advised another ultrasound to be got done in May and the same was done on 31st May, 2011. It was averred that even at this time both the Scanning Centre and the treating doctor assured the Complainants that everything was alright and should come again at the time of delivery of the child. When the second Complainant asked both the Opposite Parties about the observations in the report that there is asymmetry of the featal limbs being small in size as per gestational age, both the Opposite Parties assured the Complainants that there was nothing to worry about and that they would have a normal baby.

(3.) The first Complainant got herself admitted in the second Opposite Party Nursing Home for delivery of the baby on 7.6.2011 and an ultrasound was done on the same date, the report of which was directly sent by the Scanning Centre to the second Opposite Party and the Complainants received it only after the cesarean section was performed and the delivery was complete. It was pleaded that a perusal of the report showed that there were significant physical deformities in the baby but the same were explained as being seen because of poor visualization due to amniotic fluid. It was stated that the discharge card clearly mentioned that the baby had malformation of all the four limbs. It was stated that lower half of the right arm and the leg were missing and lower part of the left arm and leg were deformed with abnormal fingers, toes and foot. It was pleaded that the ultrasound reports given by the Scanning Centre were incomplete and insufficient giving the wrong conclusion and the birth of the significantly deformed child could have been avoided if the second Opposite Party was more vigilant and the Complainants could have taken legal/medical option of terminating the pregnancy in an early stage. Hence, the Complaint seeking direction to the Opposite Parties for the following reliefs:-