ANUPMA NIGAM Vs. MANISH KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27.5.2005, the Complainant, Manish Kumar Sharma, took his wife Smt. Sita, aged about 29 years, to the Petitioner/OP-1, Dr. Anupama Nigam for treatment, during her pregnancy. The OP-1 advised for an ultrasound (USG) from the OP-2, Dr. Poonam Mehrotra and it was diagnosed as 13 weeks pregnancy with a tumor measuring 14.5 x 10.5 c.m. near the uterus. The OP-2 suggested FNAC, accordingly OP-1 advised FNAC from the Pathologist, OP-3, Dr. Rekha Garg of Amba Pathology. The Complainant alleged that after FNAC, the patient developed some problem, the blood was collected in the abdomen. She consulted the OP-1, who advised need of removal of tumor, the fibroid. Therefore, the patient consulted different doctors in Kanpur and finally approached Maduraj Nursing Home in serious condition of Hemoperitonium with shock and septicemia. There, she was given proper treatment and blood transfusion. The patient gave birth to a pre-mature baby. Hence, the Complainant alleged that it was due to negligence during performing FNAC which was advised by the OP-1, the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony. Thus, complainant filed one complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, 'District Forum') Kanpur in Consumer Complaint No. 123/20089 and another Criminal complaint before the District Magistrate. The District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

(2.) Thereafter, the OPs 1 to 3 filed First Appeal No. 1850/2209 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, 'State Commission'), Uttar Pradesh, which was dismissed. Hence, the OP-1 approached this Commission through this Revision Petition.

(3.) We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Petitioner is also present in-person. There was delay of 4 days in filing this revision petition, it is condoned after perusing the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. On merits, the Counsel for the Complainant, Mr. Pardeep Kumar vehemently argued that the OP-1 have misguided the patient that there was tumor, it was cancerous and needed immediate surgery. The FNAC was advised by the OP-1. She did not take any consent in this regard. Even after FNAC, she has not treated the patient properly, but informed that there will be danger to the foetus and there are chances of removal of uterus also. He further contended that the Medical Board Report is against the OP-1. OP-1 had not followed the norms prescribed by MCI and PNDT Act. The OP-1 influenced the District Magistrate and took favourable report. Hence, there was total negligence and prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition.