Case Title:
Dr. Indra Chopra vs Rashmi Saxena
Date of Order:
13th March, 2023
Bench:
Dr. S M Kantikar
Parties:
Petitioner: Dr. Indra Chopra
Defendant: Rashmi Saxena
Order:
- Under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the petitioners have filed this revision petition in opposition to the challenged order from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "Order"), dated July 19, 2016. Referred to as the "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 2228/2008, where the Petitioner/Opposite Party's appeal was rejected and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lakhimpur's decision in Consumer Complaint No. 255/2004 was sustained.
- Parties are referred to as situated for convenience in the original complaint submitted to the District Forum. Dr. Indra Chopra as OP-1, Ms. Usha Devi and Ms. Uma Devi as OP-2 and 3, respectively, are the helpers.
- The complainant was admitted to the Chopra nursing home for delivery, according to Dr. Indra Chopra (OP-1). The doctor's helpers OP-2 and OP-3 were present, however the complainant's condition worsened during the delivery owing to excruciating agony. The OP-1 physician was contacted, but she didn't answer. The OP-1 instructed her helpers not to bother her. As the complainant's condition worsened, the doctor eventually arrived in the delivery room. In the complainant's case, the kid was born dead and both ureters were injured during caser surgery as a result of OP-1's and her aides' delay and incompetence. After that, the patient had to have another procedure, which cost more money.
Defence:
- In her response, Dr. Indra Chopra (OP-1) denied negligence. With the Complainant's written consent, OP performed a caesarian birth due to intensified labour pains. Although the procedure was successful, the kid was sadly lost. OP-1 claimed that no costs were assessed because of her older brother-in-law Sri Arun Kumar Saxena's past relationships and trust with the complainant, who had pledged to pay later but had instead failed to do so. The OP denied that her maid servant or any other helper helped with the delivery. She further denied that the operation had injured her ureter, which was the cause of the ongoing leakage of urine. The patient did not return for further treatment after being released from the nursing home. The complaint was made with the malicious intent of slandering the physician and nursing facility.
- After hearing from the parties, the District Forum found OP No. 1 to be negligent, partially upheld the complaint, and ordered OP-1 to pay Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 15,000 towards litigation costs within a month.
- The OP-1, who was dissatisfied with the District Forum's decision, filed the First Appeal with the State Commission in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The same was rejected, and the District Forum's order was upheld with the accompanying comment: From the entirety of the case's facts, it is clear that the Appellant/Opposite Party engaged in gross negligence by performing the delivery without the assistance of a trained or untrained nurse and without a nurse. She also carried out the operation hastily on the morning of January 14, 2004, without first ascertaining the child's status, and from these facts we find that in the present case the Opposite Party No. 1/Appellant has engaged in a deficiency in service. It is appropriate to dismiss the appeal that the appellant filed. The OP-1 filed the current Revision Petition after feeling wronged.
- Heard the knowledgeable Counsel on each side. Read all of the documentation, including the orders from both fora.
- According to the knowledgeable Petitioner's attorney, the Complainant failed to provide any proof of carelessness. The District Forum misunderstood Dr. Rakesh Kapoor's explanation of the ureteral stricture that might occur following a caesarean procedure. Also, the State Commission made a mistake by ignoring the medical literature submitted by the OP-1 regarding the dangers of ureteral injury during obstetric and gynaecological procedures. He added that an unpleasant event or fatality does not always constitute fault. The amount of the reward was exorbitant.
- The knowledgeable attorney for the complainant said that the petitioner/OP-1 was irresponsible and hurriedly and negligently performed the operation, which resulted in the loss of her child and caused harm to the urinary system. He further asserted that the revisionist's negligence is the only reason the respondent suffers and that if she had carried out her obligations correctly, the respondent would have been able to have a child and lead a happy life without needing to undergo expensive medical treatment.
- In my opinion, there was a breach of the OP-1's duty of care given the information in the file and the totality of the events. As the patient was experiencing intense labour pains, she did not attend to her right away; instead, she left the patient in the care of unqualified and inexperienced aides. The emergency caesarian delivery was carried out at a late time, which ultimately led to the fatality. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's rulings in Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India & Anr. and Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., this Commission's revisional competence is quite limited. In the current instance, both Fora have reached concordant conclusions regarding the facts, and there doesn't seem to be any basis to overturn the reasoned orders made in accordance with this Commission's revisional authority granted by Section 21 of the Act, 1986.
- The Revision Petition is dismissed because it was poorly formulated and had no value.
