National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Anita Bhushan vs Sumitra Sharma on 8 April, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 558 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 12.10.2010 in Appeal Nos.3031 & 3098/2004 of the State Commission, Haryana ) Dr. Anita Bhushan .Petitioner MBBS Clinic/Hospital & Mahesh Nagar Chowk, Ambala Cantt. Versus Sumita Sharma .........Respondent Wife of Shri Sandeep Sharma, Aged 24 years, resident of House No.11-A, Shiv Partap Nagar, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Bhushan, Authorized Representative PRONOUNCED ON: 8th April 2011 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. Complainant Sumita Sharma delivered a baby girl on 15.08.1999 at General Hospital Chandigarh, thereafter on 21.9.1999 she got a Copper-T inserted by the Revision Petitioner/OP, Dr. Anita Bhushan. Four months later, she found that she was pregnant again. According to the Complainant, Dr. Anita Bhushan, tried to remove the Copper-T but failed and thereafter aborted the child.
2. In the Consumer Complaint filed against Dr. Anita Bhushan, the Complainant alleged medical negligence in insertion of the Copper-T and resultant suffering, financial loss and loss of a child for which she claimed compensation of Rs.150,000/- along with costs. The District Forum, Ambala came to the conclusion that the case of negligence is made out for which compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with costs of Rs.10,000/- were awarded.
3. The appeal of the OP, Dr. Anita Bhushan was dismissed by the State Commission with the following observations:-
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Hence, both the appeals i.e. appeal no.3031/2004 for setting aside the impugned order and appeal No.3098/2004 for enhancement of compensation are dismissed.
4. The Revision Petition before us is filed against the above order of the Haryana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by Dr. Anita Bhushan. We have perused the records and heard the authorized representative of the Revision Petitioner. The main ground on which the Revision Petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission is that the failure of sterilization /contraceptive is not in itself proof of medical negligence. This argument ignores the fact that it was not only the contraceptive (Copper- T ) which had failed in this case, but also the attempt of the Revision Petitioner to remove it, eventually leading to loss of the child itself.
5. The other ground of challenge to the impugned order is that insertion of Copper- T was done free of cost and therefore, it was wrong to hold that the Complainant is a Consumer. Once again it needs to be noted that the facts relating to the present complainant do not end with the insertion of Copper- T. The State Commission has very rightly rejected the plea of the Revision Petitioner that the abortion of the child was done by the Revision Petitioner on the request of the Complainant and without charging any money for it. In this context, the State Commission has made the following observations:-
Undisputedly, the complainant had given birth to a female child on 15.08.1999. It is also admitted that Copper-T was got inserted by the complainant from the opposite party and inspite of Copper-T, she conceived. It is also admitted that at the time of examination by the opposite party on 28.1.2000 the pregnancy was of four months and it was a male child. Thus the plea taken by the opposite party that the complainant herself wanted to get the child aborted is proved falsified in view of admission of the parties. It is matter of common knowledge that in the Indian Society a lady who is having only a female issue, would not allow to abort a male child. More so, it is admitted case of the opposite party that despite of installation of Copper-T, the complainant had conceived a child.
Thus, the medical negligence and deficiency of service fully stands proved on record against the opposite party.
6. It is an admitted fact that in the case of the Complainant, Copper- T was inserted by the RP/OP, Dr. Anita Bhushan. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant was referred to Dr. Ajay Madan by Dr. Anita Bhushan for ultra sound to locate the Copper -T. In the affidavit of Dr. Madan, it is stated that Copper- T was located by him. All other facts of this case fall within these two. In this background, we do not find any merit in the Revision Petition.
7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order of Harayana State Consumer Disputes Redresaal Commission does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality, which can justify our intervention under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 The revision petition is therefore dismissed with no orders as to costs.
.
(R.K.BATTA, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER S./-