Anil Srivastava JUDGMENT
Anil Srivastava, Member
1. This complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) by Smt. Sunita Kumar and another, resident of Delhi, for short complainant, alleging deficiency of service in the matter of administering treatment to them and praying for relief as under:
a. Direct the respondent hospital to pay the complainants Rs. 15 lacs for the treatment of the child and Rs. 72 lacs. for keeping two trained maids/nurses to take care of the child.
b. Direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs against their negligence unfair trade practice and deficiency which caused mental and physically harassment/agony/wastage of time/financial loss/loss of comfort and peace/loss of family peace, loss of reputation in society etc.
c. Direct the respondents to pay the cost of litigation amounting Rs. 25,000/-.
d. Any other relief(s) order(s) as per facts and circumstances mentioned above may be passed by this Hon'ble Commission as it may thing fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of complainant and against the respondent.
2. Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3. The complainant No. 1 Mrs. Sunita, who is the wife of the complainant No. 2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar got herself registered with the respondent hospital i.e., the St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi 110054 on the 4th month of her first pregnancy. The complainant No. 1 got herself examined by the respondent hospital i.e., from 28.01.2010 to 25.06.2010. The complainants also deposited all medical expenses as raised by the respondent hospital from time to time. During the above said period of pregnancy the OP hospital conducted all the tests including ultrasound etc. and subsequent to the tests done, the doctors of the respondent found and reported everything as normal. The complainant No. 1 got admitted in the respondent hospital i.e., St. Stephen's Hospital on 25.06.2010 and delivered a male child on 26.06.2010. The delivery was forced and there were complications, the fact which was never brought home either to the complainants or to their family members. The complainant or any family member was never informed that the newly born child has been shifted to nursery owing to the deficiency of oxygen. It is only three days after delivery, doctors of the respondent hospital i.e., St. Stephen's hospital informed the complainant that the condition of the child is not good and he has suffered with brain hemorrhage.
4. The complainants thereafter sought the opinion of doctors of other hospitals and they confirmed that the newly born child had suffered with brain hemorrhage which, as per their oral opinion was owing to the negligence of the OP hospital.
5. The complainant has further submitted that the complainant No. 1 was under Ante-natal follow ups of the OP Hospital, hence, everything about the patient or the fetus was known to the doctors of OP hospital and at the time of pain, decision to go for a delivery was taken by the doctors of the respondent hospital noting as per the available records that:-
a. The patient was fit to undertake normal delivery; and
b. The fetus inside the womb was also normal and had no signs of distress to warrant to go for LSCS.
Therefore, during the process of delivery there was fatal distress as the doctors of St. Stephen's Hospital did not decide to abort the process of delivery and to take up the patient for LSCS. This fact clearly shows that the doctors of St. Stephen's Hospital did not monitor the patient as the fetus later developed distresses. The child has Perinatal Asphyxia. The cause of Asphyxia is non-availability of Pediatrician at the time of delivery or non-competence or negligence of the pediatrician. The Asphyxia has led to brain damage causing a spastic child. Brain damage of the child has been detected as revealed by the CT scan.
6. The allegation of the complainant is that OP hospital instead of treating the child pressurized them to take the child from the hospi........