State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. J.K. Ahuja vs Smt. Sonia Saini on 11 August, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 166/2010
Dr. J.K. Ahuja
Owner of Ahuja Ultrasound Centre
Pahari Bazar, Roorkee, District Haridwar
......Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Smt. Sonia Saini W/o Shri Amardeep Saini
R/o Village Dandhedi, Khawajgeerpur
District Haridwar
......Respondent/Complainant
Mr. Rajiv Kakkar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Sunil Kumar Paralia, Learned Counsel for the Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 11/08/2011
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the Consumer Complaint No. 184/2009 and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) within a month from the date of the order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Sonia Saini, during her pregnancy in the year 2009, was under the medical supervision of Dr. (Smt.) M. Wahi, Gynecologist. On the advice of Dr. (Smt.) M. Wahi, she went to Dr. J.K. Ahuja of Ahuja Ultrasound Centre, Roorkee - opposite party for an ultrasound test on 27.03.2009. Dr. J.K. Ahuja, on the basis of the ultrasound report, observed that the pregnancy being at its early stage, the report was not 2 clear and, therefore, advised the complainant to visit after two weeks. On 11.04.2009, she again visited Dr. J.K. Ahuja for an ultrasound test. This time Dr. J.K. Ahuja made a report on the basis of the ultrasound test that "Uterus - is enlarged and shows a well defined single gestation sacs with two foetuses, one live foetus with normal cardiac activity and second dead foetus 6 weeks." However, Dr. J.K. Ahuja also advised the complainant in his report to seek a second opinion. She showed this report to her Gynecologist Dr. (Smt.) M. Wahi. On the advice of Dr. (Smt.) M. Wahi, respondent visited Vipin Ultrasound Centre, Pahari Bazar, Roorkee on the same day i.e. 11.04.2009 and got another ultrasound test done on her. Dr. Vipin Gupta, of Vipin Ultrasound Centre reported in his report that single live foetus was seen. Thus, the incorrect and misleading report prepared by Dr. J.K. Ahuja - opposite party put the complainant in great mental stress and, therefore, she filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum Haridwar. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as stated above. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. Having considered the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellant has not made such a deficiency in service for which he may be held liable to pay a huge compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the District Forum, Haridwar. As a matter of fact, a six to seven weeks of pregnancy is an early stage of pregnancy and, therefore, sometimes the ultrasound technique may not reveal the exact condition of foetus. That is what happened on 27.03.2009, when the respondent visited appellant's ultrasound centre for the first time. Second time on 11.04.2009, it 3 revealed something for which the appellant opined that there may be two foetus, one live and another dead, but it was not his final finding because if the treating doctor would have proceeded for further treatment on the basis of the report, that might have resulted in a damage to the respondent. That is why the appellant advised the respondent to seek a second opinion. The ultrasound report prepared by Dr. Vipin Gupta, on the very same day revealed that there was only one live foetus and there was no evidence of a dead foetus. At the most, we can say that the appellant had made some observational error either due to some technical problem in his ultrasound machine or due to his error in analysing or interpreting the sonograph. Whatsoever be the reason, but the report prepared by the appellant put the respondent atleast for sometime, in a shocked state. It also made her to pay for another ultrasound test. Thus, to this extent, the appellant may be held liable to pay some compensation to the respondent, but the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the District Forum towards compensation, is certainly on a very higher side and appears to be quite arbitrary. In our opinion, a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- would be just and proper. The impugned order is modifiable accordingly.
5. Appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the District Forum is modified by reducing the amount of compensation to Rs. 5,000/- . Cost of appeal is made easy.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)