MOHIT SRIVASTAVA Vs. DR. NEELAM MISHRA
LAWS(NCD)-2021-3-5
NCDRC
Decided on March 04,2021

Mohit Srivastava Appellant
VERSUS
Dr. Neelam Mishra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DR.S.M.KANTIKAR,J. - (1.) The brief facts: The Complainant No. 1 Mohit Srivastava's wife Smt. Sandhya Srivastava, the Complainant no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "patient") during her pregnancy was under care of Dr. Neelam Mishra (the Opposite Party No. 1) at Shivani Clinic in Kanpur. On 22.12.2005 at about 4.00 p.m., she felt labor pains and consulted Dr. Neelam Mishra, who admitted the patient in Kanpur Medical Center Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "the Opposite Party No. 3 - KMC). On the same day, the Opposite Party No. 1 conducted delivery of the patient and a healthy female baby was born at 10.29 pm with the birth weight 4.2 kg. It was alleged that in the midnight at about 12.45 a.m., the Opposite Party No. 1 rushed the hospital and directly went to the labor room. At around 1.15 am, the Pediatrician Dr. Chandrayee Luthra (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 2") came to the hospital and she also rushed to labor room. On enquiry, the duty doctor told the Complainant No. 1 that the baby was suffering from fever; therefore doctors have been called to see the baby. The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 came out of labor room wherein the Opposite Party No. 2 was holding the baby in her hand, wrapped in a cloth with only face and the hand of the baby visible. The Opposite Party No. 1 said in Hindi that "Thand ki vajah se Phaphole par gaye hain" and informed the Complainant No. 1 that the child was suffering from cold and got infected which needs ICU care; and that there is no need to worry, the baby will be fine by morning. The Complainant No. 1 requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to show the baby, but she was not willing to show it, however after lot of persuasion the cloth was unwrapped from the baby which revealed a bandage put on lower portion of both the legs. Upon further enquiries, the Opposite Party No. 2 admitted that the baby sustained burn injuries because of a rod heater kept nearby. It was alleged that the entire staff went to attend another delivery and they forgot the instant baby, putting near the rod heater. The mother and the child were kept under treatment at the KMC for two months. The baby's skin grafting of both legs was done using mother's skin. The baby and mother were discharged from the hospital on 20.02.2006.
(2.) After discharge from the KMC, the Complainants took their child to Ursula Horsman Memorial Hospital (UHM), Kanpur. The Emergency Medical Officer examined the baby and confirmed the thermal burn injuries to the baby which lost three toes in the left and two toes in the right side because of dry gangrene. The Complainant further submitted that the baby was under regular treatment for several years at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. The baby underwent several corrective operations and plastic surgery. The Complainants suffered mental agony and incurred huge expenditure on the treatment of their child.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the alleged medical negligence due to careless treatment and deficiency in service from the Opposite parties; the Complainants filed the Consumer Complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act, 1986') and prayed compensation to the sum of Rs.1,02,33,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a for the irreparable loss and injury suffered by them. DEFENCE: All the Opposite Parties filed their respective written versions and in totality, denied allegations of negligence on their part. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.