State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Charanjit Kaur vs Ruhi Bansal on 6 August, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1873 of 2011
Date of Institution: 20.12.2011.
Date of Decision: 06.08.2015.
1. Charanjit Kaur wife of Sh. Bant Singh, Practicing as Private
Daayi (mid-wife) of village Wazidke Khurd, Tehsil and District
Barnala.
2. Sarabjit Kaur wife of Sh. Darshant Singh c/o Ex Panch Najar
Singh practicing as Private Daayi (mid-wife) of village Wazidke
Khurd, Tehsil and District Barnala.
.....Appellants/opposite parties no.1 & 2
Versus
1. Ruhi Bansal wife of Sh. Arun Bansal resident of Wazideke
Khurd, Tehsil and District Barnala.
.....Respondent/complainant
2. Life Line Multispecialty Hospital (Tapa Walle), Near 22 Acre
Improvement Trust Scheme, Barnala, through its
Incharge/Managing Director.
3. Abhishak Bansal, Life Line Multispecialty Hospital (Tapa
Walle), Near 22 Acre Improvement Trust Scheme, Barnala.
4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rampuraphul, District Bathinda.
.....Respondents/opposite parties no.3 to 5
First appeal against order dated
21.11.2011 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Barnala.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 2 For respondent no.1 : None For respondent no.2 &3: Sh. A.S. Barnala, Advocate For respondent no.4 : Ex-parte.
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellants of this appeal (the opposite party nos.1 and 2 in the complaint) have directed this appeal against respondent no.1 herein (the complainant in the complaint) and respondent nos.2 to 4 of this appeal (opposite party nos.3 to 5 in the complaint), assailing order dated 21.11.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Barnala (in short, "the District Forum"), accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing OP nos.1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.6 lakhs, as compensation to the complainant and their liability to pay the compensation has been fixed as joint and several.
2. Complainant Ruhi Bansal has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that she felt severe abdominal pain on 05.08.2009 and suspected herself to be pregnant. OP nos.1 and 2 have been working as mid-wives at Village Wazidke Khurd, Tehsil and District Barnala. OP no.1 Charanjit Kaur was acting as helper of OP no.2 Sarabjit Kaur and they used to advertise themselves as trained mid-wives by proclaiming that OP no.2 had completed the ANM Course and was qualified to take care and treat the pregnancies. The complainant visited OP nos.1 and 2 with First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 3 complaint of abdominal pain. OP no.2 alongwith OP no.1 treated the complainant and stated that she was pregnant, but developed some complications without disclosing their details to her. OP no.2 administered some injections to complainant without disclosing the name of the injections. OP nos.1 and 2 used some long scissor type instrument on the complainant, whereas the husband of the complainant was asked to wait outside. The complainant started bleeding profusely, as a result of application of scissor type instrument upon her body. OP nos.1 and 2 administered some medicines to the complainant as well, without disclosing their names. OP nos.1 and 2 treated the complainant despite the fact that pregnancy of the complainant was not matured and has not to be treated in that manner. The husband of the complainant paid Rs.5000/- to OP nos.1 and 2, as demanded by them, as fee. On account of mis-management and mishandling by OP nos.1 and 2, the condition of the complainant deteriorated and thereafter OP nos.1 and 2 took the complainant to Life Line Multispecialty Hospital of OP no.3 and she was got admitted with OP no.3 and she remained admitted there till 09.08.2009. The mode and manner of treatment and the prescription thereof were not disclosed to the complainant and her family members by OP nos.1 and 2. OP no. 2 left the complainant at the Hospital of OP no.3 after secretly informing Abhishek Bansal OP no.4. The condition of the complainant remained precarious, despite treatment of OP nos.3 First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 4 and 4 and they refused to divulge the details of the treatment to the complainant. On 09.08.2009, the family members of the complainant were asked by OP no.4 to shift her to DMC&H Ludhiana, considering the serious condition of complainant and she was taken to DMC&H Ludhiana. OP nos.3 and 4 had not provided the medical history or record of treatment, while discharging her from their hospital and shifting her to DMC&H Ludhiana, as required under The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. The complainant was admitted at DMC&H Ludhiana on 09.08.2009, vide CR no.89822, admission no.29058 in SU-IV department. The history recorded by the DMC&H doctors, revealed that the complainant had abdomen distrusion, yellowness of body and eyes and was having respiratory distress. The factum of treatment by local dayee (Mid-wife) and admission in private hospital were also recorded therein, substantiating the claim of the complainant. So much so, no past medical record/history of the treatment either by OP nos.1 & 2 or by OP nos.3 and 4 was furnished. The history of ailment and the treatment of complainant were not available and her condition did not improve as doctors at DMC& H Ludhiana insisted upon knowing her past history. The complainant remained at DMC Hospital Ludhiana till 12.09.2009 and spent Rs.7 lakhs on her treatment. The complainant pleaded that OP nos.3 and 4 were bound to maintain the record for three years under Regulation 1.3.2 of The Indian Medical Council (Professional First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 5 Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Legal notices were served upon the OPs by the complainant as well, but to no effect. The complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- for medical expenses incurred by her, besides Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OP nos.1 and 2 filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable, as it involved complex question of facts and law. It was further averred that complainant has claimed unreasonable and exaggerated amount of compensation and this matter cannot be decided in summary proceedings by Consumer Forum. The complaint is alleged to be false and frivolous and an abuse of process of law by OP nos.1 & 2. It was also denied that complainant is consumer of OP nos.1 and 2. On merits, OP nos.1 and 2 admitted that they have the certificate of registered daies and denied this fact that they practiced privately. They denied this fact for want of knowledge that complainant ever experienced any abdominal pain and was pregnant as such. They denied this fact that complainant visited OP nos.1 and 2, as pleaded in the complaint for any treatment from them. It was further denied that they treated the complainant as alleged in the complaint and thereby she developed above complications and they refused to disclose the treatment and the said complication to the complainant. It was First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 6 vehemently denied by them that they treated the complainant and administered injection to her. The answering OPs put up the case of total denial in the written reply to the case of the complainant. It was further pleaded that husband of the complainant took an amount of Rs.50,000/- from Nazar Singh, the brother of Darshan Singh, the husband of OP no.2 in the month of April, 2009 in the presence of Hari Singh Sarpanch of Vill. Wazideke Khurd and when Nazar Singh demanded the amount of Rs.50,000/- back from husband of the complainant, then the complainant and her husband invented the false excuses and filed the complaint malafide against the answering OPs. OP nos.1 and 2 pleaded ignorance about Regulation 2002 of The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics). They also put up the defence of total denial to the fact of leaving the complainant at the Hospital of OP nos.3 and 4 after secretly informing OP no.4 about it. OP nos.1 and 2 stoutly denied the allegations of the complainant in their written reply and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP nos.3 and 4 filed their separate written reply by raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. The complainant is guilty of delay and latches and she is not entitled to any relief as claimed in this case. On merits, it was admitted that OP no.4 is the sole proprietor of Life Line Multispecialty Hospital (Tapa Walle) near 22 Acre Improvement Trust Scheme, Barnala. It First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 7 was further pleaded that complaint has been filed against OP nos.3 and 4 by distorting facts with some ulterior motive. The answering OPs pleaded that complainant was fully aware of this fact that she was pregnant and she intended to abort the said pregnancy, for which, she initially took some pills and later went to OP nos.1 and 2 for getting the said pregnancy terminated by Dilatation and Curettage (D&C). It was further pleaded that complainant went to OP nos.1 and 2 without the consent of her husband and without informing her husband to boot. Some grave complications arose and complainant was brought by her husband to OP nos.3 and 4 with the acute abdominal pain. She was also accompanied by Sarabjit Kaur at that time. It was further pleaded by the answering OPs that complainant or any person accompanying her did not disclose the procedure done upon the complainant for the termination of her pregnancy. A thorough diagnosis was done and ultrasound study revealed that complainant was having ruptured ectopic pregnancy and there was accumulation of blood/fluid in peritoneal cavity i.e. abdomen. This was provisional diagnosis based on the clinical examination of the complainant and history given by the complainant by herself, which was later on found to be false and concealment of true facts by the complainant and her attendant i.e OP no.2 Ms. Sarabjit Kaur. The complainant required immediate surgery and the persons accompanied her were fully informed about the condition of the complainant and their consent was obtained for laparotomy First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 8 taking her case to be of ectopic pregnancy. When the abdomen of the complainant was opened, it was found that there was perforation at the fundal part of uterus and about 15 cm of distal ileum (intestine) was found missing. The husband of complainant accompanying her was informed about the said facts and they were asked to tell the true facts. The complainant disclosed that she had infact undergone D&C at the hands of OP nos.1 and 2 and in the meantime OP no.2 slipped away from there. The possible treatment was given to the complainant, her uterus was repaired and paretoneal lavage was done and ileostomy surgeryof intestinal injury was done. Ileostomy is a procedure in which the intestinal opening was created in the abdominal wall for passage of faecal matter and a ileostomy bag was also provided for that. This is such a procedure which can never be concealed. The complainant and her husband and persons accompanying were fully aware of this fact what surgical procedure was done upon the complainant. On 09.08.2009, the complainant faced difficulty in breathing and developed jaundice and she was referred to DMC Hospital Ludhiana, where she herself gave the history to the attending doctors and disclosed that on 04.08.2009, she had undergone MTP for six weeks gestation by some local 'Dai'. The complainant has filed the complaint with ulterior motive against OP nos.3 and 4 only. It was denied that OP nos.3 and 4 are guilty of any deficient service or any unfair trade practice or medical First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 9 negligence. OP nos.3 and 4 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP no.5 filed its separate written reply by raising preliminary objections that complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complaint was also contested by OP no.5 even on merits submitting that complainant is not entitled to any relief. The Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. OP no.5 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-118 and affidavit of Arun Kumar husband of the complainant Ex.C-119. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.R-1 and affidavit of various persons Ex.R3 to R-5 alongwith documents Ex.R-2, Ex.R-6 and R-7 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.R-8 alongwith registration certificate Ex.R-9 and closed the evidence. OP nos.3 and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vishal Garg Ex.R-10 and affidavit of Dr. Abhishek Bansal Ex.R-14 and affidavit of Dr. Atul Mishra Ex.R-29 alongwith documents Ex.R- 15 to Ex.R-28 and closed the evidence. OP no.5 tendered in evidence affidavit of J.K. Walia Divisional Manager Ex.R-11 alongwith documents Ex.R-12 and Ex.R-13 and closed the evidence. On conclusions of evidence, the District Forum accepted the First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 10 complaint of the complainant against OP nos.1 and 2. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP nos.1 and 2 now appellants have carried this appeal against the same.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case carefully. The pleadings of both the parties contained in their respective statements on the record have been duly examined by us. The affidavit of complainant is Ex.C-1 on the record. She has reiterated her averments on oath in this affidavit, as pleaded in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of legal notice dated 01.09.2010 and Ex.C-3 is the postal receipt thereof sent to Charanjit Kaur OP no.1. Ex.C-4 is legal notice sent to Sarabjit Kaur OP no.2 and Ex.C-5 is the legal notice sent OP nos.3 and 4. The legal notice sent to Medical Superintendent DMC Hospital Ludhiana is Ex.C-6 and Ex.C- 7 to C-9 are postal receipts thereof. Ex.C-10 and C-11 are the acknowledgements. Ex.C-12 is the discharge summary of complainant issued by DMC Hospital Ludhiana. Ex.C-13 is the report of u/s Chest (Portable) of the complainant. Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-88, are the test reports and clinical biochemistry reports of the complainant by the laboratories. Ex.C-89 to C91 are the detail of bills issued by the DMC Hospital Ludhiana in the name of complainant. Ex.C-92 to C-118 are the bills of medicines purchased by the complainant. Ex.C-119 is the affidavit of Arun Kumar husband of the complainant on the record.
First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 11
8. To rebut this evidence of the complainant, OP no.2 Sarabjit Kaur tendered her affidavit Ex.R-1 and also placed on record the copy of certificate in the name of Rupanjeet Kaur for having been registered as 'Trained Dai'. Ex.R-3 is the affidavit of Hari Singh, Ex.R-4 is the affidavit of Nazar Singh, Ex.R-5 is the affidavit of Harmail Singh. Copy of judgment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7 is the copy of decree sheet. OP no.1 placed reliance on her affidavit Ex.R-8. Ex.R-9 is copy of registration certificate issued by Punjab Nurses Registration Council for Trained Dai, but the name is not legible in it, in whose favour it was issued. OP nos.3 and 4 placed reliance on affidavit of Vishal Garg Ex.R-10. Ex.R-14 is the addifavit of Dr. Abhishek Bansal to the effect that entire record maintained by the Life Line Multispecialty Hospital Barnala. Ex.R-15 is the indoor record of the complainant. Ex.R-16 to R-18 are the copies of cross match slip of Blood Bank Civil Hospital Barnala. Ex.R-19 and R-20 are the copies of treatment chart of complainant. Ex.R-21 is the copy of consent taken from complainant and her relatives for the procedure conducted upon the complainant by OP nos.3 and 4. Ex.R-22 to R-28 are the test reports of the complainant. Ex.R-29 is the affidavit of Dr. Atul Mishra Associate Professor of DMC Hospital Ludhiana on the record. OP no.5 placed reliance upon affidavit of J.K. Walia Divisional Manager of The New India Assurance Company Limited Ex.R-11. Ex.R-12 is the copy of policy and copy of terms and conditions of medical policy is Ex.R-13 First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 12 on the record. Statement of Dr. Atul Mishra Ex.R-Z is on the record. Ruhi Bansal complainant was also cross-examined before District Forum on 06.06.2011 by counsel for the OPs extensively.
9. Undoubtedly, OP nos.1 and 2 have put up the case of total denial in treating and giving injection to the complainant, but their version is found belied from the written statement of OP nos.3 and 4. OP nos.3 and 4 confirmed this fact in their written reply that OP no.2 Sarabjit Kaur accompanied the complainant, when she was brought to their hospital for her treatment. The medical record, as discussed above, has proved it on the file that attempt was made to abort the complainant by OP nos.1 and 2 in this case ham-handedly. Ex.R-2 is the copy of certificate in favour of Rupanjeet Kaur. Even from affidavit of Dr. Abhishek Bansal Ex.R-14, it is proved that on examination, the case of complainant was found ruptured ectopic pregnancy, which is generally called tube pregnancy, which took place outside the uterus. He categorically stated on oath that Sarabjit Kaur accompanied her, when complainant was brought to Hospital and Sarabjit Kaur is known to OP nos.3 and 4. The very presence of Sarabjit Kaur, as companion of complainant to the Hospital, as deposed by Dr. Abhishek Bansal corroborates the version of the complainant that complainant was attempted to be aborted by OP nos.1 and 2 in a maladroit manner. The history sheet of complainant was prepared by OP nos.3 and 4, vide Ex.R-15 on the record. We find no force in the submission of the complainant that no such First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 13 history was prepared at all or supplied to the complainant by OP nos.3 and 4. This fact is established on record by Indoor Record of the complainant, vide Ex.R-15 and the Treatment Charts are Ex.R-19 and R-20 on the record. The consent taken from the relatives of complainant by OP nos.3 and 4 for her treatment is Ex.R-21. The District Forum rightly found no medical negligence or deficient service on the part of OP nos.3 and 4 in this case and discharged them from the liability by dismissing the complaint against them. We are in complete agreement with the findings of the District Forum to this extent with regard to the role of OP nos.3 and 4 in this case.
The version of OP nos.1 and 2 is that husband of the complainant took money from one Nazar Singh, the brother in law of Sarabjit Kaur OP no.2 and when Nazar Singh demanded back money from the husband of the complainant, then complainant filed the instant complaint falsely against OP nos.1 and 2. OP nos.1 and 2 relied upon the affidavits of many persons on the record in this regard, vide Ex.R-3 the affidavit of Hari Singh, Ex.R-4 the affidavit of Nazar Singh and Ex.R-5 the affidavit of Harmail Singh. The copy of judgment is Ex.R-6 of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Barnala and case was between Harmail Singh and Arun Kumar and not between Nazar Singh and Arun Kumar, as pleaded by OP nos.1 and 2.
Consequently, we do not find it to be a sufficient ground to falsely file the complaint against OP nos.1 and 2 by the complainant on that First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 14 matter. We are not convinced with the submission of the appellants that complainant was motivated to file the complaint falsely against them on the above referred premise. The record prepared by the Life Line Multispecialty Hospital at Barnala and the affidavit of Abhishek Bansal coupled with the discharge summary of the complainant duly corroborated the fact that the case of the complainant was of disrupted ectopic pregnancy. Attempts were made by the quacks to terminate the pregnancy of the complainant. Medical termination of pregnancy is permissible only under certain situations by qualified and trained doctors as permitted by law and not by the charlatans/quacks. Consequently, we reject this plea of counsel for the appellants that this complaint has been filed falsely on account of that reason by the complainant, because her husband owed money to Nazar Singh, the brother in law of OP no.2.
10. We find that the consent of the relatives of the complainant was duly taken for laparotomy taking the case to be of ruptured ectopic pregnancy by OP nos.3 and 4. Whatever was observed at that time by OP nos.3 and 4 is recorded as follows:
"When the abdomen of the complainant was opened, it was found, that there was perforation at the fundal part of uterus and about 15 cm of distal ileum (i.e. intestine) was found missing. Complainant disclosed that she had infact undergone D&C at the hand of OP nos.1 and 2. By this time, OP no.2 Ms. Sarabjit Kaur First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 15 'slipped away'. In these circumstances, the best possible treatment was given to the complainant, her uterus was repaired and peritoneal lavage was done and ileostomy surgery of intestinal injury was done. Ileostomy is a procedure in which the intestinal opening is created in the abdominal wall for passage of faecal matter and an ileostomy bag is also provided for that. In the aforesaid situation all the necessary precautions were taken and the aforesaid surgical procedure was necessary, to save the life of the complainant, which was accordingly done with the consent of the complainant and persons accompanying her, including her husband. On 09.08.2009, the complainant had been having difficulty in breathing and developed jaundice, was referred to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana. She had herself given the history to the doctors attending on her in which, she had herself disclosed that on 04.08.2009, she had underwent MTP for six weeks gestation by some local 'Dai'. She had herself narrated all the fact, which have been narrated hereinbefore. In fact the husband of the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- in all for the treatment of the CC to OP nos.3 and 4.
11. We find that it is established on record that OP nos.1 and 2, who worked as mid-wives at Village Wazidke Khurd, Tehsil and District Barnala, physically examined the complainant when she suffered abdominal pain on 05.08.2009 and suspected her to be a case of pregnancy. We find that OP nos.1 and 2 are not qualified in First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 16 any manner to terminate the pregnancy by inferring with the same, which is a highly sensitive and complicate matter. We find that it is established the version of the complainant that OP nos.1 and 2 introduced an instrument like scissor by using inadvertent force after introducing instrument into the vagina of the complainant. The instrument further crossed the uterine wall and further causing damage to the intestine without caring or having knowledge that their act could cause the complainant to go into sepsis, shock and ultimately would lead her to death. The complainant's evidence has established this fact on the record that OP nos.1 and 2 proclaimed themselves as trained mid-wives quite competent to deal with such type of cases. OP nos.1 and 2 also administered some injections to the complainant and then started using long scissor type instrument by introducing into her vagina, which developed the complications, bleeding etc. We find that OP nos.1 and 2 adopted a criminal procedure, by introducing instruments into the cavity of the uterus, without taking proper aseptic precautions. According to the Shaw's Textbook of Gynecology page 382, the injecting organisms are E.Coli, haemolytic and non-haemolytic streptococci, staphylococcus aureus, anaerobic streptococci, gonococcus, pneumococcus and CI. Welchii. Clostridial and haemolytic streptococcal infections are the most dangerous. The worst forms of septic abortion are those in which the uterus is perforated and an acute peritonitis results. Other forms of sepsis, such as parametritis, thrombophlebitis and white- First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 17 leg, salpingitis and tubovarian abscess are seen in septic abortion. Septicemia occasionally follows the evacuation of an infected uterus and the most dangerous infecting organism is the CI. Welchii. These complications are essentially similar to those found in puerperal sepsis and their treatment should be carried out along similar lines.
12. OP nos.3 and 4 found that complainant was having ruptured ectopic pregnancy as proved on record and there was accumulation of blood/fluid in peritoneal cavity i.e. abdomen. The patient needs emergency laparotomy i.e. opening of abdomen, for finding out the cause and to correct/repair the ruptured organ. In fact this was provisional diagnosis based on clinical examination of the complainant required immediate surgery. "When the abdomen of the complainant was opened, it was found, that there was perforation at the fundal part of uterus and about 15 cm of distal ileum (i.e. intestine) was found missing. The complainant had in fact undergone D & C at the hands of OP nos.1 and 2. By conducting the operation uterus was repaired and peritoneal lavage was done and ileostomy surgery of intestinal injury was done, which is the settled procedure in which the intestinal opening is created in the abdominal wall for passage of faecal matter and an ileostomy bag was also provided for that. On 09.08.2009, the complainant had been having difficulty in breathing and had also jaundice and due to this reason, the complainant was referred to DMC Hospital Ludhiana". First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 18 The discharge summary of the complainant issued by DMC Hospital Ludhiana is also on the record, as discussed above and has been carefully examined by us. OP nos.1 and 2 could not prove this fact that they were qualified doctors to deal with the cases of termination of pregnancy of complainant. Ex.R-2 is the certificate and it is rather in the name of Rupanjeet Kaur.
13. From the above referred factual situation of the case, we hold that OP nos.1 and 2 were not qualified doctors and they were quacks and charlatans and were not competent to deal with such delicate and sensitive matters. It is not the case of mere departure from normal practice, but it is a case of gross and culpable negligence on the part of OP nos.1 and 2, who were not qualified to do this procedure at all. As appeared on the record in the evidence of the complainant, OP nos.1 and 2 also proclaimed themselves to be qualified mid-wives, whereas in fact they were not so. OP nos.1 and 2 were not professionally qualified as found by us on the record to deal with this matter. Negligence is the breach of duty exercised by omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 19 particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires, as held by the Apex Court in case "Kusum Sharma & others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & others" reported in 2010(1) CPJ-29. We find that appellants were not qualified to deal with such matter at all and they are unqualified quacks only. The counsel for the appellants referred to law laid down in "Navjyoti Eye Centre, through Dr. Vivek Pal Vs. Mohd Islam" 2015(2) CPR(NC)164 by the National Commission. This authority is distinguishable on the face of it. In the cited authority, the doctor who dealt with right eye was a qualified Eye specialist Doctor with sufficient experience in that field. The doctor treated the patient as per standard medical practice only therein and hence no negligence was found by the National Commission in the cited authority. The said authority is not applicable in this case. The appellants then referred to law laid down in "Surjit Singh Vs. Dr. Surinder Goyal"
2015(1)CLT-385 by this Commission. In the cited authority, the controversy pertained to complication of surgery of gallbladder and the known complication of surgery cannot be taken as medical negligence. From the fact situation of the cited case, it was found that no negligence was found in the cited authority. This authority would not come to the aid of appellants in this appeal and is exfacie distinguishable from this case. The counsel for the appellants then referred to law laid down in "Dr. R.C. Sharma Vs. Jage Ram"
2003(2)CPC-74 by the National Commission. The cited case was a First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 20 case of error of judgment by qualified doctor, whereas the case in hand is entirely on different pedestal. The Apex Court held in "Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another" 2005 AIR-3180 (SC) that doctor who administers medicine known to or used in a particular branch of medical profession. Impliedly declares that he has knowledge of that branch of science. The instant case is not a case of error of judgment, but is of grave and gross negligence and rather culpable negligence on the part of OP nos.1 and 2 in this case. The ectopic pregnancy was ruptured due to ham-handed conduct of the case of complainant by OP nos.1 and 2, who were not qualified in the branch of Gynecology and were mere quacks only. We affirm the findings of the District Forum holding OP nos.1 and 2 negligent, deficient in service or guilty of unfair trade practice to the complainant in this case. We do not find any merit in the submission of the complainant that the record of treatment of complainant was not supplied by OP nos.3 and 4. The record was duly prepared by OP nos.3 and 4 and then complainant was referred to DMC Hospital Ludhiana and hence the submission of complainant carries no weightage on this point.
14. The counsel for the appellants argued that the District Forum has awarded unreasonable compensation in its order under challenge in this appeal. We find that complainant must have spent about Rs.3,00,000/- on her treatment cumulatively. The complainant spent lot of amount at hospital of OP nos.3 and 4 and also on First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 21 medicines and tests. The amount of Rs.1,17,721/- was spent by complainant at DMC Hospital Ludhiana. The complainant also continued her treatment even thereafter. Consequently, we hold that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs) for her actual expenses and in addition to that we also award the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (One lakh) to complainant for mental harassment and physically suffering caused by OP nos.1 and
2. We also award the costs of litigation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. The order of the District Forum on the point of quantum of compensation is modified protanto and it is held in this appeal that complainant is entitled to total amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Four lakh and fifty thousand) from OP nos.1 & 2, now appellants. The order of the District Forum is, thus, substituted in this appeal to that extent by holding that complainant is held entitled to total amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from OP nos.1 and 2.
15. As a result of our above discussions, the appeal of the appellants is partly accepted on the point of quantum of compensation only, whereas it is dismissed on the remaining counts.
16. The appellants had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.75,000/- in compliance with the order of this Commission. Both the amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant now First Appeal No.1873 of 2011 22 respondent no.1 in this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. OP nos.1 and 2, now appellants shall pay the remaining amount of compensation to the complainant as awarded by this Commission within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, failing which, the remaining amount shall carry the interest @9% per annum from the date of order of this Commission till actual payment.
17. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER August 06, 2015.
(MM)