Haryana

Karnal

CC/319/2021

Sharvan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

12 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 319 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.08.07.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:12.03.2024

 

Sharvan Kumar (age 28 years) son of Shri Ram Lal, resident of village Bir Badalwa, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal, aadhar no.9633,5438 5447.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. General Hospital, Nilokheri, District Karnal through its Medical Officer.

 

2. Doctor Vandana, Gynecologist, General Hospital, Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri B.K.Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant’s wife Ms. Anjali conceived pregnancy in the last week of November, 2020 and the complainant brought her to the General Hospital, Nilokheri, District Karnal for a medical check-up where Dr. Vandana examined and found her three months pregnant and asked the complainant to bring ultrasound report of his wife from Dhawan Ultrasound Centre, Nilokheri, District Karnal and accordingly, ultrasound examination of Ms. Anjali got conducted at Dhawan Ultrasound Centre, Nilokheri, vide ultrasound report dated 28.11.2020 with remarks: Single live intrauterine pregnancy of MGA13 WKS of 6Days+-2 WKS and Ms. Anjali also advised repeated scan at 18-20 weeks to r/o congenital anomaly. After getting the said ultrasound report, the complainant alongwith his wife met Dr. Vandana, who after satisfying the said report asked them to come upon 19.12.2020 for further medical check-up. It is further averred that complainant repeatedly requesting Dr. Vandana to get done scan, which has already been advised in ultrasound examination report dated 28.11.2020 i.e. repeat scan at 18-20 weeks to r/o congenital anomaly but Dr. Vandna did not consider the request of the complainant and thus, she has not cared the wife of the complainant as per the ultrasound examination reports. On 19.12.2020, complainant brought his wife to General Hospital, Nilokheri for her routine check-up and met Dr. Vandana vide registration receipt no.42739 dated 19.12.2020. After examination, Dr. Vandana gave her opinion regarding Ms. Anjali that “Everything is normal” and prescribed some medications and called them on 18.01.2021. On 18.01.2021, complainant got examined her wife, vide registration receipt no.3015 and thereafter Doctor called them to come up on 27.02.2021. Till then everything is normal and Ms. Anjali had been taking medications as per the prescription of Dr. Vandana. On 28.02.2021, complainant’s wife started feeling pain in her stomach and complainant immediately brought her to General Hospital, Nilokheri but due to holiday, Ms. Anjali was got checked in an emergency ward by the doctor on duty, asked the complainant to get done ultrasound of his wife. The complainant got his wife to Dhawan Ultrasound Centre, Nilokheri and obtained ultrasound report dated 01.03.2021, in which Ms. Anjali was advised for level-II scan. Then after consulting the doctor on duty, the complainant brought her wife to Dhawan Ultrasound Centre, Jernailly Colony, Karnal, where the ultrasound examination for Foetal Anomalies-Level II USG of Ms. Anjali was conducted. Then complainant and his wife alongwith said ultrasound report went to General Hospital, Nilokheri on the next day i.e. 02.03.2021, where Dr. Karishma after going through the said report, disclosed that the baby in her womb is not normal and there is a risk of life to both mother and baby in her womb. Dr/ Karishma further told the complainant that at this stage, abortion is also not possible because the baby is of 27 weeks 4 days old. The complainant shocked to hear this all from Dr. Karishma and all this happened due to carelessness and wrong medications and prescriptions given by Dr. Vandana. Having no alternate, complainant brought his wife to PGI, Chandigarh where ultrasound and some other tests of Ms. Anjali were conducted in PGI, Chandigarh and then they used to call up Ms. Anjali every Wednesday and Saturday for routine medical check-up. They had been visiting PGI Chandigarh on every Wednesday and Saturday for medical check-up but the condition of the baby started becoming bad to worse because of wrong treatment and medication at the initial stage of pregnancy. At last, Ms. Anjali delivered a dead baby on 20.05.2021 at PGI Chandigarh, but the grace of God, life of the complainant’s wife was saved by doctors of PGI, Chandigarh. Had Dr. Vandana cared and provided proper treatment and medication to Ms. Anjali from time to time, then the precious life of the baby could be saved. Moreover, the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh clearly told the complainant that the initial treatment of Ms. Anjali has not properly conducted by doctor at Nilokheri and the doctors at General Hospital, Nilokheri did not prescribe proper medications and all this has been happened only due to the carelessness at the initial stage. Due to this act and conduct and treatment of Dr. Vandana, complainant and his wife are suffering from great mental shock, agony and pain and lost her baby. The complainant has spent huge amount of rupees about two lacs on the treatment of Ms. Anjali during the pregnancy period. Besides this complainant has spent about Rs.50000/- on conveyance charges etc. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, metal agony, torture, harassment etc. alongwith the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per record of the treatment supplied by the complainant treated his wife namely Ms. Anjali very well. The wife of complainant visited first time on 23.11.2020 in General Hospital, Nilokheri with OPD slip no.4006. At that time Anjali was four months pregnant and OP no.2 advised her for blood investigation and ultrasound examination. As per blood report, the report were normal. On 28.11.2020, Anjali got her ultrasound from Dhawan Ultrsound Centre and as per report of Dr. Sangeeta Dhawan, the fetus was normal of 14 weeks with no congenital anomaly seen only placenta was interior and reaching the internal OS. After observing the report, the OP no.2 prescribed one injection progesterone was given towards the bleeding and advised her to take rest. On 19.12.2020, Anjali visited the OP no.2 with OPD slip with pain in abdomen and OP no.2 advised her for urine examination and got her routine check-up and after going through the reports, the OP no.2 prescribed the relevant medicines for UTI. Again, Anjali visited OPs on 18.01.2021 with a history of white discharge or leaking. OP no.2 examined her thoroughly and prescribed the relevant medicines in the situation. As per the documents provided by the complainant, he alongwith Anjali came on 27.02.2020 and came in emergency, the OP no.2 was not there and therefore, the doctor on emergency duty attended Ms. Anjali. During the treatment, the OP no.2 did not prescribed any medicine which can be harmful to the child in womb. The disease deducted through ultrasound dated 01.3.2021, is a disease named as Cogenital Hydrocephalus, this type of anomaly in the womb can be appeared in the latest stages upto the thirty five week and there is no pre-natal treatment for this anomaly. It may be due to any cause obstruction in the brain formation. This anomaly is not due to any medicine prescribed by OP no.2. There is no report of doctor of PGI, Chandigarh as alleged on file by which the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh have recommended the carelessness of treatment prescribed by the OP no.2 during the visit of complainant and his wife. It is pertinent to mention here that after 18.01.2021, Dr. Karishma has observed complainant’s wife during emergency. It is matter of record that Dr. Karishma advised Anjali for level II scan.  There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of ultrasound reports dated 28.11.2020 and 01.03.2021 Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, OPD slips dated 28.11.2020, 19.12.2020, 18.01.2021, 27.02.2021, 02.03.021 Ex.C6 to Ex.C10, copy of PGI card and doctor’s report dated 03.03.2021 Ex.C11 and Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Vandana, SMO Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 24.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has submitted that his wife conceived pregnancy and he brought her to the OP no.1 i.e. General Hospital, Nilokheri, District Karnal for a medical check-up, where Dr. Vandana OP no.2 examined and found three months pregnant and treated his wife by the OPs from first week of November, 2020 till March, 2021. Dr. Vandana has not treated his wife properly and has given wrong treatment due to that his wife delivered a dead baby on 20.05.2021. He further submits that had Dr. Vandana cared and provided proper treatment to his wife from time to time, then life of the baby could be saved. The baby died due to gross negligence of the OPs and prayed allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that treatment given by the OPs is not denied but there is no negligence on the part of the OPs. The wife of complainant was properly attended and treated as per norms of medical and there is disease named as Cogenital Hydrocephalus, this type of anomaly in the womb can be appeared in the latest stages upto the thirty five week and there is no pre-natal treatment for this anomaly. There is no report of doctor of PGI, Chandigarh vide which the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh has recommended the carelessness of treatment prescribed by the OP no.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The complainant has alleged that the life of his wife and baby was in danger due to wrong treatment given by OP no.2 and  due to carelessness of doctor, the child of complainant died in womb of his mother and due to grace of god, his wife was saved by the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh. The doctors of PGI, Chandigarh clearly opined that OPs did not give proper treatment to his wife. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has placed on file documents i.e. copy of ultrasound reports dated 28.11.2020 and 01.03.2021 Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, OPD slips dated 28.11.2020, 19.12.2020, 18.01.2021, 27.02.2021, 02.03.021 Ex.C6 to Ex.C10, copy of PGI card and doctor’s report dated 03.03.2021 Ex.C11 and Ex.C12. All the documents pertain to treatment record and there is nothing on the file to prove that the OP no.2 was negligent in treating the wife of complainant. Complainant has failed to place on file any expert opinion of Board of doctors to ascertain that the medical negligence was on the part of the OPs in treating the wife of complainant. Complainant has also failed to place on file, opinion given by the Doctor of PGI, Chandigarh as alleged by complainant. There is nothing on the file to prove that the OPs were negligent and carelessness while treating the wife of complainant. Thus, in our view, wife of complainant was properly treated by the OPs. We do not find deficiency or negligence on the part of the OP no.2. Negligence cannot be attributed to her so long as she performed her duties to the best of her ability. We relied upon the case law titled as Haribhao Khodwa and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“In the very nature of medical profession, skills differs from doctor to doctor and more than one alternative course of treatment are available, all admissible. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Merely, because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession”.

 

11.                 Thus, in view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of case and case law, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.03.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                     Member                    Member