SATISH KUMAR & 3 ORS Vs. RAJENDRO SANGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2012 in CC No. 30 of 2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short the "State Commission"), the Complainants preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the 'Treating Doctor'.)

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainants' wife namely Mamta (hereinafter referred to as "the Patient") was admitted for delivery in Sangwan Clinic, owned and managed by the Treating Doctor. It is averred that on 31.12.2005, the Treating Doctor assured the Complainant that the delivery would take place within two hours. She instructed the Patient to lay down on the bed and gave an injection and asked her attendants to bring the necessary belongings as the delivery pains had already begun. It is stated that the treatment which included giving injections continued upto 10 p.m. and when the Complainant enquired about the condition of the Patient, he was told that it was a normal delivery and that the situation was under control. Thereafter the Treating Doctor had informed the Complainant at around 1.15 a.m. that a male baby was born and both the mother and child were healthy. It is averred that the Complainant was informed that the placenta had not come out and when the Complainant insisted that he would take the Patient to PGIMS, Rohtak, the request was refused and he was once again informed that an injection was administered and the placenta would come out eventually. Thereafter, the Treating Doctor started pressing the stomach of the Patient with great force and only on account of the excessive pressure administered, that the placenta along-with uterus had come out. The Patient's condition deteriorated. Dr. Lakshmi Hooda was called to see the Patient and when the said doctor saw the condition of the Patient, she immediately advised the Complainant to take her to PGIMS, Rohtak. Then Complainant immediately took the Patient to PGIMS, Rohtak, despite the objection of the Treating Doctor, got her admitted in emergency and explained the condition to the Doctors there. It is averred that despite their best efforts, the Doctors at PGIMS could not save the life of the Patient. She expired on 03.01.2006 at 2.00 p.m.

(3.) The Complainant went to lodge an FIR against the Treating Doctor and police lodged DDR bearing No. 24 on 09.01.2006. On receipt of the Complaint, the Police made an Application to the superintendent of PGIMS, Rohtak to constitute a Board of Doctors for giving their opinion. The Doctors examined the case filed on 14.01.2006 and gave their opinion vide an endorsement PGIMS, Rohtak/Misc./06/173 dated 17.01.2006. After obtaining the Doctors' opinion, the Appellants moved an Application to S.P. Head Quarter, Rohtak for investigation annexing the copy of the Doctors' opinion. On 18.01.2006, it was found that it was a prima facie case under Section 304-A, IPC and an FIR was registered bearing No. 18 of 19.01.2006 against the Treating Doctor. The Treating Doctor was arrested and during investigation the statements of 16 witnesses were recorded. It is also averred that charges were framed on 04.09.2006 under Section 304-A, IPC and the case was posted for hearing. Dr. Lakshmi Hooda, during her deposition stated that the Patient's condition deteriorated as the Placenta had not come out. It is pleaded that it is only on account of negligence in the treatment rendered by the Treating Doctor that the Patient had expired. Hence the Complainant approached the State Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of the death of his wife who was also mother of three minor children who have been deprived of the love and affection of their mother.