SUNITA RANI Vs. KETAKI GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Bathinda dated September 24,1997 whereby the complaint has been dismissed.

(2.) According to the appellant/complainant, Sunita Rani w/o Sh. Lachhman was pregnant in the month of August, 1994 and after coming to know about her pregnancy, she went to Dr. Renu Garg for regular check up and the appellant after getting her checked up from Dr. Renu Garg on 23.8.1994 felt some pain in her abdomen on 31.8.1994, she alongwith her husband went to the respondent on 1.9.1994 for further check up arid he abdomen ''womb and abortion is Further, the opposite party advised the appellant/complainant to get the ultrasound scan of her abdomen from Dr. G. S. Nagpal, Bathinda. The appellant got the ultrasound scan ofher abdomen from Dr. G. S. Nagpal on 1.9.1994 itself and paid Rs.400/- for that purpose. After going through the report, the opposite party told the appellant and her husband that immediate abortion needed to be done to avoid mis-hap. The appellant surrendered herself for the purpose and the same was done by the opposite party on 1.9.1994 and she charged Rs.1,500/- for the said purpose. Prescription slip and ultrasound scan report with photograph are at Exs. A-2, A-4 and A-3 respectively. The appellant was advised to lake some tests on 6.9.1994 at about 3/4 a. m. The appellant felt severe pain in lower abdomen and she went to the respondent at her clinic at about 6.30 a. m. After examination of the appellant, she was put on Glucose drip, but no further treatment or tests were got done till midnoon. The opposite party /respondent, there after called some doctors a assess the problem of the appellant without my tests. The respondent told the appellant and her husband that some pieces of unborn child sere left in the abdomen which were necessary to be removed by way of operation. The opposite party/respondent without consent of the appellant and her husband did the surgery/cut- down the abdomen of the appellant and the appellant was forced to remain in her clinic for 15-20 days and the respondent charged Rs.30,000/- as operation fee, indoor charges and medicines etc. After the operation, the appellant felt something in her abdomen and the abdomen was increasing day by day, so the appellant went to Dr. Usha Madan for check up on 14.3.1995 and on that very day the appellant came to know that she was having pregnancy of 7 months and Dr. Usha Madan advised test to the appellant/ complainant vide prescription Ex. A-6. The appellant gave birth to a female child on 16.6.1995 at Verma Nursing and Maternity Home, Bathinda. As per version, no abortion was done on 1.9.1994 and no substance of unborn child was taken out of the womb by the respondent by way of alleged surgery on 6-9.1994. It was done by the respondent due to greed of money. The complainant/appellant has alleged that she has become permanently disabled, feeble and her working capacity has been reduced and her enjoyment of life has adversely affected, and she has been cheated by the opposite party/ respondent. The complainant prayed before the Forum for the award of Rs.4,96,000 /- on account of compensation, costs for upbringing the newly born baby, illegal treatment charges collected after operation.

(3.) The opposite party filed the reply and contested. The opposite party admitted that the complainant came to the opposite party on 1.9.1994 in her hospital with the complaint of pain in abdomen and Ammenorhea as an outdoor patient with the outdoor patient slip and ultrasound scan report of Dr. Renu Garg, Bathinda, and in the scan report of Dr. Renu Garg, it was written that there was no pregnancy,- but there was doubtful mass/tubal pregnancy (ectopic pregnancy) on right side of the abdomen with a quarry. So the opposite party advised the complainant a treatment with antibiotics for five days and asked her to come after five days and charged Rs.20/- from her as consultation fee. The opposite party denied the allegations that on that day, she told the complainant that an unborn child had died in her womb or that she was to be aborted and further that the abortion was done and Rs.1,500/- were charged from her. On examination Blood Pressure (B. P.) of the complainant was detected to be 90 mm. and the pulse was very feeble. The complainant/patient looked pale and did not allow any examination as she was suffering from severe pain in abdomen. The abdomen was very terse and tender. B. P. (Blood Pressure) was falling and the opposite party called Dr. P. S. Rajpal for opinion as the opposite party considered the case of the complainant to be a case of emergency with rupture tubal pregnancy. The condition of the patient/complainant was deteriorating further and the attending doctor explained to the patient/ complainant and her husband that the condition of the patient/complainant was very serious and the patient/complainant could die at any moment and then, the opposite party conveyed to the complainant that an emergency operation for rupture tubal pregnancy was necessary. With the consent of the husband of the patient, the abdomen of the complainant was opened and on opening the abdomen, the attending doctors found that the uterus and the tubes of the complainant were normal except swelling around the right tube. On further examination, the attending doctors found that there were 2/3 ulcers which had perforated the intestine at 2/3 places and the faecal matter was oozing out of the perforation in abdomen and it seemed to be a case of tuberculosis (TB) in abdomen. The attending doctors removed the perforated portion of intestine upto the healthy part, end to end anastosmosis was done, abdominal cavity was washed with normal saline to prevent further infection. Abdomen was closed in layers. The cut portion of the intestine was sent for pathological test to Patiala, the report of which confirmed the diagnosis to be a case of tuberculosis of intestine. Post-operative recovery of the complainant was good and the complainant remained in her hospital for about 15 days after the operation. At the time of discharge from the hospital, the complainant was advised to visit after seven days for post-operative check up and was further advised not to bear pregnancy for atleast one year as she was weak and was suffering from T. B. The complainant was then referred to T. B. Hospital, Bathinda for further treatment. The total expenses of the complainant including the doctor fee and the medicine were not more than Rs.12,000/- out of which the complainant paid Rs.3,500/- only and Rs.3,000/- were yet to be paid to the opposite party. The complainant again visited the opposite party as an outdoor patient again on 9.12.1994 and on examination at that time, the opposite party/respondent found that the complainant was pregnant and she was advised ultrasound scan of the lower abdomen. The opposite party further asked the complainant as to why she had conceived the child when she was advised not to have pregnancy for atleast one year more and asked the complainant and her husband to pay the balance and on that demand, the husband of the complainant started abusing the opposite party and threatened her of dire consequences.