BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Tuesday, 19th January 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 65 / 2014
Smt. C. Jaya Subbalakshmi, W/o Y. Sreenivasulu,
aged about 46 years, Hindu, employee, Resident of
D.No. 9/9-2, Saipeta, Kadapa district. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
Padma Test Tube Baby Centre, Rep. by
Dr. Y. Padmalatha, Sri Balaji Hospital Complex,
D.No. 4/2-2 Beside Medinova Hospital, Nehru Road,
Gandhi Road, Proddatur, Kadapa district. ….. Respondent.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 07-01-2016 in the presence of Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant and Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the resident of Saipeta of Kadapa city and a employee as such and her husband is a contract worker in RTPP, Kalamalla which is their normal livelihood. The respondent had been running a clinic under the name and style of Padma Test Tube Baby Center at Proddatur and as such she is a Gynecologist.
3. The petitioner was married to Mr. Sreenivasulu about 4 years back and had been very eager to be blessed with children. Therefore, for all these 4 years they were making efforts of all types to begot children, but themselves could not succeed. Therefore, they were intending to approach a good Gynecologist and during the said feelings she and her husband saw advertisement in local T.V. and so also in Sunday special book of Sakshi Telugu daily during the Vinayaka Chaviti festival season of 2012. Therefore, the petitioner with fond hope of becoming mother approached the respondent for consultation along with her husband on 14-07-2012 in fact they have explained their troubles and problems. As such without testing the petitioner or husband, the respondent stated that it would be costing around ₹ 1,50,000/- towards her or their fee and ₹ 50,000/- towards medicines. However the petitioner and her husband was in calamitous inevitability of becoming parents accepted for the same.
4. It is submitted that the respondent asked the petitioner and her husband to visit the hospital in the month of August 2012 and as such she had been charging amounts for consultation periodically apart from the fixed amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- for the said purpose. Accordingly they approached the respondent and underwent certain tests in the very same hospital for which even she collected amounts and no reports are given to the petitioner and stated that they will be keeping the same with them only. The outcome of the reports stated to by the respondent are that the husband of the petitioner is with 83% and two graba sanchi – and two tubes are to the satisfactory and eggs are also fine. On the respondent stated that the unmarried people come from Tamilnadu and eggs will be transmitted from those unmarried people to the petitioner and the same would be costing ₹ 80,000/-. The petitioner also brought to the notice of the respondent about the Thyroid decease with which she had been suffering or which the respondent answered that the Thyroid is nothing to do with the treatment that is being given by her and as such thyroid would not come in the way of treatment.
5. In the month of January 2013 semen from the husband of the petitioner was collected and there were periodical tests and medicine was being prescribed till about January 2013. The amounts collected from the petitioner are ₹ 1,50,000/- towards her fee, medicines ₹ 50,000/-, ₹ 80,000/- to Chennai unmarried people. For HIV tests to be sent to Hyderabad at ₹ 30,000/- (₹ 50,000/- is demanded by her, but on bargain she accepted at ₹ 30,000/-) In addition to the fifty thousand taken for medicines, she used to prescribed medicines for the petitioner which she had to purchase from her own medical shop and the same costs about ₹ 60,000/-. The semen which was taken from the petitioner’s husband in the month of January 2013 which was applied on the same day. They have taken certain signatures in some of the papers stating that they are formal ones without the same being read over or they have never allowed to read over atleast.
6. She finally stated to rely on the god and not on the respondent. However, the respondent had been treating the petitioner very negligently since beginning and she failed to render proper treatment. The petitioner and her husband have been following all the instructions guidelines issued by the respondent as she assured for the treatment and be-gotting the children. The respondent in fact assured for the result. Had he respondent not assured for the same the petitioner should not have ventured to invest all or entire their savings and would not have been standing on the empty roads. There are so many complaints against the respondent and the respondent in fact has promised to all the people and they failed to render proper services. Almost all the cases of similar types ventured by the respondent are failures. There is not success of even one percent in the similar type of cases. Thus the respondent failed to render proper assured services to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner left with no other alternative than to approach this Hon’ble forum for necessary redressal. Hence, the complaint.
7. Therefore, the complainant prays that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent (a) to pay a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of receiving the said amount till the date of payment including the other sums received by the respondent as stated above, (b) to award the sum of ₹ 1,90,000/- being the amounts paid under the heads of medicines, Tamilnadu young people (c) to award a compensation of ₹ 2,00,000/- for deficiency of services on the part of the respondent towards the mental agony which the petitioner and her husband suffered, (d) to pay a sum of ₹ 1,500/- being the costs of this complaint and (e) to pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice.
8. Counter field by the respondent that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the facts except those that are specifically admitted by this respondent.
9. It is respectfully submitted that it is an admitted fact that the respondent is running a clinic under the name and style of Padma Test Tube Baby Center at Proddatur town. The respondent is a gynecologist by profession. It is true that the complainant approached the respondent doctor on 14-7-2012. But it is utter false that the respondent doctor had given wide publicity in News Papers and TVs. Before starting treatment to the complainant the respondent doctor had thoroughly explained to her and her husband about the nature of treatment to be given and the course of procedure to be adopted during the period of treatment and having satisfied with the treatment the complainant herself accepted to take treatment.
10. It is submitted that it is utter false to contend that without testing the complainant and her husband that the respondent doctor has stated that the cost of expenditure would be around ₹ 1,50,000/- towards IVF and her other fee or ₹ 50,000/- towards medicines. It is utter false to contend that as the complainant was eagerly anxious of treatment under the respondent doctor accepted the said amount. The respondent doctor did not issue any provisional bill. Whatever amounts the complainant had paid towards the investigation charges the relevant and proper bills were issued to her and they are with her only. The respondent doctor did not keep them with her and it is only a blatant lie to contend by the complainant that all the bills are still with the respondent doctor only.
11. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent doctor never told the complainant that the unmarried people come from Tamilnadu and eggs will be transmitted from those unmarried people to the complainant and the cost would be around ₹ 80,000/-. Before admitting into the respondent hospital the complainant got investigated outside. The respondent doctor had done semen analysis for her husband which was normal. The respondent doctor thoroughly investigated both the complainant and her husband. As per the reports which the complainant had brought on 14-7-2012 when she approached the respondent doctor for treatment the FSH & LH values were normal. TSH was normal. The complainant was getting only with drawl bleeding. That was only due to the complainant is having menstruation based on the investigation reports the respondent doctor advised the complainant for donor egg. The complainant knew very well about the requirement of donor egg, even she before taking treatment under the respondent. The complainant wanted her co-sister as donor. The respondent doctor thoroughly investigated Ramanamma who was aged about 23 years. P2L2 were her reports which are normal. The respondent doctor started stimulation. After 5 days of stimulation scan showed no follicles and the same thing was explained to the complainant and then the respondent cancelled the stimulation. The respondent doctor told the complainant that she will give a donor egg at fee of cost. After investigations the respondent started injection Gonoperptyl for down regulation. After that the respondent started tablet Progynom, tablet All-a, tablet Asprin, after 11 to 13 days progesprne started and elubryo transfer done. After Elubryo transfer same treatment continued. Injection Gonopeptyl stopped on the day of starting progesterone. It is submitted that the respondent doctor never collected ₹ 80,000/- towards medicines and ₹ 80,000/- towards Chennai unmarried people. If at all those two amounts were really paid to the respondent the same shall be proved by the complainant. The respondent doctor never collected ₹ 30,000/- for HIV report to be obtained from Hyderabad nor she issued any bill for that amount.
12. It is submitted that necessary investigations were done before commencing the course of treatment on 6-8-2012 thyroid test was done which was normal. On 6-8-2012 one B. Narayana Reddy, M.D. a clinical bio-chemist, a serology / immunology test was done and submitted his laboratory test report on 6-8-2012 one Dr. Madhavi Latha, M.D. a micro biologist had done Anti cardiolipin capsule and submitted her report. On 6-8-2012 another test was done for coagulation by one Dr. Nithin Chawla, M.D. a Pathologist and also another laboratory test was done on even date. The complainant had stated that she paid ₹ 1,50,000/- + ₹ 80,000/- + ₹ 80,000/- + ₹ 30,000/- towards HIV test and ₹ 60,000/- for medicines. For the all the tests done separate bills were issued including for medicines and the complainant shall prove that those amounts were paid to the respondent only. The respondent doctor had charges and collected ₹ 8,000/- only towards her fees. The respondent doctor never promised tht she will collect eggs from unmarried people. The respondent doctor collected egg from married people who completed family life. The respondent doctor personally explained to the complainant regarding success and complications and then only the complainant and her husband signed on consent form and another letter containing particulars of consent for test Tube baby (IVF – ET / ICSI) and also another consent letter for insemination and for utilization of donor egg. The complainant and her husband had also singed on a letter containing particulars of consent for embryo transfer.
13. It is submitted that the respondent doctor never assured 100% success. The complainant brought her sister as a donor by name Ramanamma. The complainant became pregnant, but there is no gesational sac that is early implantation failure. The complainant became pregnant and her beta HCG value is 181.8 MU/ML on 6-2-2013 which indicates pregnancy. On 23-2-2013 scan was done at Padma Test Tube Baby Centre, Proddatur which showed no e/o gestational sac and then the complainant was advised to stop medicines.
14. It is submitted that the complainant did not make out a specific case of negligence on the part of the respondent doctor in attending on her by giving treatment. All the allegations made out in the complaint were totally bad and omnibus allegations without being backed by any proof of evidence. The amounts that were shown in the complaint said to have been incurred are cooked up figures with a false version of lying claim from the respondent.
15. It is submitted that the respondent doctor is a qualified doctor who has been successfully practicing on gyenic side and on the side of Test Tube Baby care. The respondent doctor is a professionally skilled doctor with a reasonable degree of knowledge and experience in the said filed. The complainant did not specifically averred as to what was omitted to be treated by the respondent at the time of giving treatment to her and what was needed and expected to be given during the course of treatment. Without furnishing such information mere making of allegations will never amount to medical negligence. The complainant did not specifically make out the case of negligence on the part of the doctor. What were the precautions or treatment that were omitted or negligently not taken care of, at the time of giving treatment to the complainant by the respondent doctor were not pleaded.
16. It is submitted that the medical negligence could not be attributed on the part of the doctor without any proper base. The complainant did not say that the respondent what should have been done was not done and what was done should not have been done in case of treatment given to the complainant by the respondent doctor. There is no negligence on the part of the respondent doctor in the treatment that she had given. It is not a case of 100% success. But only a treatment that was given without giving any 100% assurance of conceivement by giving necessary and proper treatment based on norms of medico treatment. The respondent doctor did not make any promise either orally or in written that there would be 100% guarantee and therefore, the question of contending by the complainant that the respondent doctor cheated does not arise. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.
17. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent or not?
- To what relief?
18. On behalf of complainant PW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of respondent RW1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B10 were marked.
19. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is very clear from Ex. A1 that the complainant had approached the respondent doctor on 14-7-2012. Ex. A3 shows only fee details of IVF but not fee paid by the complainant to the respondent doctor. Ex. A4 also proves that the complainant had underwent treatment at the respondent doctor. Before going treatment the complainant and her husband executed the consent forms under Ex. B1 consent letter for using donor sperm from the complainant and her husband. Ex. B2 consent letter for Test Tube Baby (IVF – ET / ICSI). Ex. B3 is consent for insemination with husband’s semen. Ex. B4 is consent for using donor eggs, Ex. B5 is consent for embryo transfer, Ex. B6 is lab report. Ex. B7 is semen analysis report. Exs. B8, B9 and B10 were lab test reports before treatment. The complainant did not clearly stated anywhere in her complaint about treatment of the respondent. The complainant nowhere stated in the complaint that what the respondent had done, was not done and was done, should not have been done in case of treatment. Simply the complainant had filed the complaint without any piece of evidence. The complainant did not filed any piece of evidence, that she had paid large amounts to the respondents towards her fee. Before starting treatment the complainant and her husband had given consent forms without any force. The complainant had not filed any piece of evidence to prove that the respondent had given assurance of 100% success rate in IVF procedure. Nowhere in the complaint, had the complainant pleaded about the treatment and deficiency of service or negligence in treatment of the respondent doctor. The complainant herself was examined as PW1 and the complainant did not made any effort to adduce evidence of the medical expert to prove deficiency of service or negligence of the respondent in her treatment. So the complainant utterly failed to prove her case as per complaint, counter and exhibits on record. It is very clear that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. In the present case no medical expert is examined to establish the factum of the deficiency in service on the part of the doctor. In every medical negligence case expert evidence is a crucial one in the absence of which the element of medical negligence cannot be fixed on the doctor. In this present case the complainant did not dispute that the respondent doctor is not professionally skilled doctor. So the complainant is not eligible for compensation as prayed by her.
20. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 19th January 2016.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant :
PW1 Smt. C. Jaya Subba Lakshmi, dt. 28-4-2015.
For Respondent :
RW1 Dr. Y. Padmalatha, 6-10-2015.
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 Medical prescription issued by the Respondent doctor i.e.,
Dr. Y. Padmalatha, Dt. 14-7-2012.
Ex: A2 Clinical Biochemistry report issued by Vimta Labs, dt. 7-2-2013.
Ex: A3 IVF fees details for Rs.1,50,000/- issued by Padma Test Tube baby Centre,
Proddatur.
Ex: A4 P/c of prescription of Padma Test Tube Centre, Proddatur.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent : -
Ex: B1 Original consent form executed by the complainant and her husband
for embryo Transfer.
Ex: B2 Original consent form obtained from the complaint and her husband
for test tube baby.
Ex: B3 Original consent for insemination with Husband’s semen obtained
from the complainant and her husband.
Ex: B4 Original consent for using Donors Egg obtained from complainant and
her husband.
Ex: B5 Original consent for Embryo Transfer obtained from complainant and
her husband.
Ex: B6 Report dated 6-8-2012.
Ex: B7 Semen Analysis Report.
Ex: B8 Laboratory Test Report dated 7-8-2012.
Ex: B9 Laboratory Test Report dated 7-8-2012.
Ex: B10 Thyroid test report 7-8-2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for respondent.
B.V.P
