Ruby Bhatia, w/o.Gurmit Singh, age: 38 years, occu: Teacher,

Navabharath school, Palvoncha, r/o.H.NO.4-175, Laxmidevipalli,

Kothagudem, Khammam District, camp at Khammam.
…Complainant

1. Dr.Jhansi Lakshmi, w/o.Dr.M.Vijay Kumar, age: 40 years, occu: Doctor,

R/o.Harsha Maternity & General Nursing Home, Berlipet, Kothagudem,

Khammam District.

2. Dr.A.Bhaskar, Consulting Padiatrician, Suguna Children Hospital,

Kothagudem, opp: Ganesh Temple.

…Opposite parties.

O R D E R

2. The daughter of complainant was born on 21-9-1996 at Jhansi hospital, Kothagudem i.e. in the hospital of opposite party No.1, delivery was quite normal. The lady doctor Jhansi Laxmi has treated her from the beginning. The baby did not cry soon after her birth. The lady doctor, Jhansi Lakshmi who was attending complainant asked to remove the child immediately to a child specialist, Dr.Bhaskar Rao, opposite party No.2, who inserted glucose in the right arm of baby, the glucose instead of feeding to the baby through vein has entered into tissues of her arm, as no doctor has attended to her during this course.

This act on the part of opposite parties amounts to negligence and resulted in damaging her right palm and particularly lost two fingers due to gangrene. Soon after this incident, opposite party No.2 advised to refer her to another child specialist, Dr.Suryam, who treated the child with heavy antibiotics, child started responding, but due to gross negligence of the opposite parties, her daughter has lost two fingers of right hand and her brain was also damaged for about 40%. Now she is not able to sit and stand, her eyes have also became squint, she is not able to understand things properly. She further submitted that she delivered a female baby at the hospital of opposite party No1, delivery was normal, but the baby did not cry immediately after the birth. But the opposite party No.1 did not let them know that this may create a lot of problem to child so the child should be taken immediately to a child specialist, instead she waited till the next day when the child overcame severe fits and opposite party No.1 consulted the child specialist, who used to visit her clinic, and then they were asked to take the child to the clinic of opposite party No.2 for investigation. The opposite party No.1 should not have advised the complainant to take the child out due to this movement of the child from the hospital, the very same day the child’s eyes got very badly infected by conjunctivitis. The pediatrician was of the opinion that child’s 40% brain had damaged due to delay in delivery and due to the usage of forceps during the delivery. Opposite party No.1 did not disclose this fact to the complainant and the Ophthalmologist also said that due to the usage of forcep the muscles have been paralyzed which caused the problem in the eyes. Hence, this complaint.

3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint. The delivery was normal and there was no question of usage of forcep during the delivery, the usage of forcep during the delivery is invented for this complaint. This complaint is filed after a lapse of 3 years in order to harass the opposite party No.1 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. On behalf of the complainant, she herself filed her chief affidavit and examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.18. Ex.A.1 is Medical Card issued by opposite party No.1, Ex.A.2 is Birth certificate of the daughter of the complainant, Ex.A.3 is Prescription (Nos.2) issued by opposite party No.1, Ex.A.4 is prescription (Nos.3) issued by opposite party No.2, Ex.A.5 is Lab reports (Nos.2) issued by Medicare & Quest Diagnostics, Ex.A.6 is cash receipt, Ex.A.7 is C.T.scan request form issued by Nims, Hyderabad, dt.30-5-1997, Ex.A.8 is Prescription issued by Nims hospital, Hyderabad, Ex.A.9 is out patient card issued by NIMS, dt.30-5-1997, Ex.A.10 is out patient ticket of Nilopher hospital for women and children, Ex.A.11 is receipt issued by NIMS hospital, Hyderabad, Ex.A.12 is prescription issued by Khairathabad Clinic, dt.30-5-1997, Ex.A.13 is Regular checkup register issued by Nilopher hospital for women and children, Ex.A.14 is letter, dt.26-4-1999 addressed to this forum, Ex.A.15 is complaint, dt.15-9-1998, Ex.A.16 is Letter, dt.11-2-1999, Ex.A.17 is letter of complainant, dt.Nil

Ex.A.18 is xerox copy of another complaint in two sheets dt.Nil.

5. On behalf of the opposite parties, no witness is examined and no exhibits are marked.

6. Both the parties filed their written arguments. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed a petition in I.A.No.711/2007, praying to send the baby for D.N.A. test to know the cause of ailment, the same was contested by the opposite parties and at last it was allowed.

7. Heard both sides. Now the point for consideration is,

1. whether there is any negligence on the part of opposite parties

during delivery of the complainant and in treating the baby

of complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation?

3. To what relief?

Points No.1 to 3:

8. The case of the complainant is that the daughter of complainant was born on 21-9-1996 at Jhansi hospital, Kothagudem i.e. in the hospital of opposite party No.1, delivery was quite normal. The lady doctor Jhansi Laxmi has treated her from the beginning. The baby did not cry soon after her birth. The lady doctor, Jhansi Lakshmi who was attending her asked to remove the child immediately to a child specialist, Dr.Bhaskar Rao, opposite party No.2, who inserted glucose in the right arm of baby, the glucose instead of feeding to the baby through vein has entered into tissues of her arm, as no doctor has attended to her during this course. This act on the part of opposite parties amounts to negligence and resulted in damaging her right palm and particularly lost two fingers due to gangrene. To prove her case, she herself is examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.18 and filed her written arguments.

9. In the written arguments, the complainant has submitted that the case seems to be dismissed on the ground that she has not adduced any evidence. She has only evidence which is the discharge sheet and no other evidence in black and white and requested to settle the matter on merits.

10. On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant filed four complaints i.e. on 15-9-1998, two complaints without dates and on 11-2-1999, which are marked as Exs.A.14 to A.17. The contents of these documents are contradicted to each other. The medical documents filed by the complainant were marked Exs.A.1 to A.18. In her complaint, dt.15-9-1998 the complainant states that the delivery was quite normal and the same was reiterated by Dr.A.Bhaskar, Pediatrician, who noted the same in his prescription dt.24-9-1996. The complainant was discharged as the delivery was normal and she was given all the prescriptions, birth certificate, discharge slip etc., at the time of discharge.

The alleged use of forcep was invented to file these complaints. The opposite parties are not aware that the complainant has taken treatment by various doctors after the discharge from the hospital. The alleged contention of use of forcep as disclosed by the other doctors is not mentioned in the prescriptions. She herself admits in her cross-examination that she did not file the reports regarding the use of forcep as contended by the other doctors. The contention of the complainant is that at the time of delivery the opposite parties used the forcep method to deliver the child. Except the verbal statement of the complainant, no proof is filed either oral or documentary to establish the fact that the child was delivered by way of forcep. The allegation of the complainant that the method of forcep was used at the time of delivery had not been substantiated by her. Mere making the allegation is not sufficient, unless the said allegation is proved by substantial evidence.

In the instant case, except the oral evidence of the complainant, no expert doctor is examined to prove the contention of the forcep. At the request of complainant, the baby was sent for D.N.A. test in order to prove the fact of mental retardness of the baby. It is contended by the complainant that due to forcep used by the opposite parties, the baby was delivered with mental retardation. Even after addressing a letter, no positive result has been received from the laboratory of D.N.A. regarding the forcep said to have applied by the opposite parties. The mere contention of apply of forcep is not sufficient. It needs to be proved, but it cannot be presumed. In the instant case, the complainant has substantially failed to establish that opposite parties No.1 and 2 applied forcep method at the time of delivery of the child and as a result of which the child was born with mental retardation. The complainant refers to a number of documents, which are marked as Exs.A.1 to A.18, but none of these documents are going to establish that the forcep method was applied by the opposite parties at the time of delivery of the child.

11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has substantially failed to establish that the delivery of the child was by way of forcep method applied by the opposite parties and as a result of which the child born with mental retardation . The complainant failed to establish the fact of forcep method applied by the opposite party doctors. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.