Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dr. (Smt.) Sheela Pahlajani (M.S.) vs Smt. Anjali Shrivastava on 15 September, 2021
Bench: Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).7466 of 2010
DR. (SMT.) SHEELA PAHLAJANI (M.S.) APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SMT. ANJALI SHRIVASTAVA RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘NCDRC’) on 17.07.2009 whereby the revision filed by the appellant against the order passed by Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘State Commission’) was allowed setting aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur.
The appellant is a Gynecologist and has been a medical practitioner for more than 45 years in the city of Raipur in the State of Chattisgarh. The respondent-complainant, mother of two daughters became pregnant in January, 2000 after 13 years of the birth of her second daughter. The complainant consulted the appellant on 04.09.2000, when she was in early stage of pregnancy. Signature Not Verified
It is the allegation of the complainant that she felt less Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.09.16 movement of the foetus on 06.10.2000 and consulted the appellant at 16:34:44 IST Reason:
her nursing home. She was advised to take juices and liquids. It was on 10.10.2000, that the complainant visited the appellant at 2 her nursing home and was advised to get a sonography test done. The sonography test was conducted in the Diagnostic Centre of Dr. Chandrika Sahu on 11.10.2000 in which it was opined an intra- uterine foetal death. It is thereafter on 13.10.2000, the complainant delivered the dead foetus through a normal delivery.
The grievance of the complainant is that even though the appellant had the facilities of conducting the sonography test at her own nursing home but still the complainant was relegated to a different diagnostic center. The assertions of the complainant were controverted. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 01.10.2002 but the State Commission allowed the appeal on 29.09.2005 holding the appellant guilty of medical negligence and granted a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is the said order which was not interfered with by the NCDRC in revision.
The NCDRC has affirmed the finding of the State Commission on the ground that the appellant has not maintained the record as mandated by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the appellant was found guilty of the medical negligence and the compensation was awarded.
As per the complainant, she consulted the appellant on 04.09.2000 and thereafter on 06.10.2000. However, the prescriptions of such visits have not been produced by the complainant. On 10.10.2000, the appellant had suggested a sonography test which was conducted by Sahu Diagnostic Centre wherein the report was of intra-uterine foetal death and it was in these circumstances, foetus was delivered normally on 13.10.2000. The fact is that the 3 complainant, as per her complaint itself became pregnant in January, 2000 when she was more than 45 years of age after 13 years of her last born daughter.
The complainant has consulted the appellant for the first time on 04.09.2000 though the appellant must be under consultation with the gynecologist during her pregnancy earlier. The only allegation of negligence is that in the sonography test done on 20.09.2000, foetus was shown to be of 20 weeks whereas after 20 days of the sonography test, foetus was shown as 29 weeks and 4 days. The report of sonography test conducted on 20.09.2000 is not on record. Therefore, the mere assertion of the complainant that the foetus was shown to be of 20 weeks cannot be accepted as the gospel truth.
Since the complainant was a new patient for the appellant when they met on 04.09.2000, there was no abnormality even alleged by the complainant in her gestation till 06.10.2000 when she reported less movements of the foetus. The appellant suggested to the respondent to take liquids on 06.10.2000 as per the complainant herself. It was on 10.10.2000, the complainant again visited the appellant who suggested a sonography test wherein intra-uterine foetal death was reported.
In view of the allegations levelled in the complaint itself, we cannot make out any case of medical negligence only on the basis of the sonography test conducted on 20.09.2000 the report of which has not been produced on record. In the absence of any positive proof of medical negligence, the appellant cannot be held guilty of medical negligence.
4Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The order passed by the NCDRC is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………J. [HEMANT GUPTA] ……………………………………………………J. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN] NEW DELHI;
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2021
5
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 7466/2010
DR. (SMT.) SHEELA PAHLAJANI (M.S.) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SMT. ANJALI SHRIVASTAVA Respondent(s)
Date : 15-09-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Manoj Sharma, Adv.
Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR (N.P.) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)