Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: IVF in Surender Bali vs Dr. Sumita Prabhakar & Others on 30 October, 2018Matching Fragments
(Per: Balveer Prasad, Member):
The appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred against the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the 'District Forum') in consumer complaint No. 78 of 2012 styled as Sh. Surendra Bali Vs. Dr. Sumita Prabhakar and others, whereby the consumer complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal, are that the complainant contacted Dr. Sumita Prabhakar at Combined Medical Institute, Dehradun on 20.04.2011 for the check-up of his wife Smt. Rajni Bali. The doctor advised for the ultrasonography test and on the basis of the report, pregnancy was detected. The other investigations - RH Antibody etc. were also got done - nothing adverse was detected - also advised for review to be done after a week. On 27.04.2011, check-up was done and thereafter Dr. Sumita Prabhakar told the complainant that the fetus is not viable and it requires medical termination of pregnancy. IVF-ET was advised. Accordingly, the pregnancy was terminated on 29.04.2011. The investigations were done in May and June, 2011 and on getting reports, Dr. Sumita Prabhakar accorded confirmation for IVF-ET and asked for arranging Rs. 1,00,000/- for the said purpose. On 27.07.2011 too, Smt. Rajni Bali faced abortion. Even after this abortion, Dr. Sumita Prabhakar assured success in IVF-ET and the required amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (in toto) was paid on different dates falling in August, 2011.
3. On 24.08.2011, the patient was kept in operation theatre for 8 hours and on 26.08.2011, IVF-ET was done without pre-operative investigations and work-up of the patient. On ambulance, the patient was taken to her residence. On 27.08.2011, Smt. Rajni Bali complained of vomiting and abdominal pain. Dr. Sumita Prabhakar was contacted on telephone. She spoke that it is a usual phenomenon. The patient's condition worsened. On 31.08.2011 at about 6:00 p.m., when Dr. Sumita Prabhakar was consulted, she prescribed two injections, i.e., Emeset and Voveran, which the patient got administered at home, but the patient's condition did not symptomatically improve.
18. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 focused our attention on the point that the medical practitioners attending the patient under reference, were all competent, highly qualified and known expert in the field to which they belong. Whatever medical steps were taken, they all were done with the free consent of the complainant and his wife. Emphasis was also supplied on the point that utmost care was taken by Dr. Sumita Prabhakar with regard to IVF-ET. It was also argued that the death of the patient was caused due to acute pancreatitis with shock with LVF, which has nothing to do with IVF-ET. It was further submitted that the consumer complaint is the outcome of malafide and ill-will on the part of the complainant, designed to blackmail the doctors. It was also pointed out that no expert evidence was furnished, nor the averments of counter affidavit were replied by the complainant. With these submissions, it was narrated that the order passed by the District Forum is legally perfect, requiring no interference. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision given in the case of Ajay Khandel and another Vs. Prakash Nursing Home and another; (2017) 4 CPR (NC) 552, wherein the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi relied on the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew (Dr.) Vs. State of Punjab and another; 2005 (6) SCC 1 = III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC), quoted thereunder:
............ The law is a watchdog, and not a bloodhound, and as long as doctors do their duty with reasonable care, they will not be held liable even if their treatment was unsuccessful."
23. The perusal of the record also reveals that the report of Ethics Committee, Uttarakhand Medical Council, Dehradun, has also been relied on by the appellant and the same is Paper No. 85, filed in appeal. The report makes it clear that Smt. Rajni Bali had bad obstetric history with multiple IUD's, abortions and high blood pressure during pregnancies. It was also noticed that Smt. Rajni Bali had high risk case. The couple had a daughter aged about 13 years', but still they wanted one more issue and for that purpose, they furnished consent in writing for IVF-ET. On being investigated, the case was found to be fit for IVF-ET and the same was done. Thereafter, she was diagnosed having infection and stone in gallbladder and acute pancreatitis, which has no nexus with IVF-ET. Report envisages that usually medicines are prescribed on telephone by medical practitioners without proper check-up of the patient, which should not be done. It was also pointed that if the patient was in need of medical help, the complainant should have brought the patient to the hospital, instead of contacting the doctor on telephone and in this way, the patient's outcome could have been better. On these remarks, warning was issued to Dr. Sumita Prabhakar.