Doctor Liable For Negligence, NCDRC Confirms The Order Of The State Commission

The complainant/patient was admitted to the nursing home of Revision Petitioner Doctor for delivery. Due to delay and negligence on the part of the Doctor and her assistants, the ureters of the patient suffered injury during caesarean operation and the child was born dead. Later the patient/complainant had to undergo another operation which incurred further expenses. The complainant’s husband had to file a police case and an FIR was registered under Sections 316, 326 of IPC against doctor. In addition to the criminal case, a consumer complaint was also before the District Forum, Lakhimpur, UP

The opposite party /Doctor argued that due to increased labour pains, she performed caesarean delivery. The operation was successful, but unfortunately, they could not save the child. She also denied that the complainant’s ureter was damaged during the operation, and urine was leaking continuously. After discharge from the nursing home, the patient had not visited for a follow-up. It was alleged that the complaint was filed with bad intentions to defame the doctor and nursing home.

The District Forum held the Doctor negligent and directed her to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost within one month of date of the order.

Aggrieved by order of the District Forum, the Doctor filed an Appeal before the State Commission, Lucknow, U.P. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Order of the District Forum. The State Commission observed that Doctor committed gross negligence by conducting delivery without the help of any trained nurse.

Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Doctor filed a Revision Petition before the NCDRC.

The Counsel for the Petitioner/doctor argued that the respondent/patient failed to produce any evidence of negligence. She argued that the unfortunate incident of death does not necessarily amount to negligence.

Counsel for the respondent/patient argued that the revision petitioner /doctor was negligent and performed the operation hastily and negligently & resulting in the loss of her child and causing damage to urinary tract.

The NCDRC, after hearing both the parties, observed that there was a failure of duty of care on the part of the Doctor . The Doctor did not attend the patient immediately when she was in severe labour pains. The Doctor left the patient in the hands of neither qualified nor trained assistants. The caesarean operation was performed hurriedly at a delayed stage which caused the death of the child . The Commission relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr. and ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd which stated that the Revisional Jurisdiction of the Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited, and the Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.

The Commission, therefore, dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Doctor/Petitioner.

Case Name: Dr. Indra Chopra Vs Rashmi Saxena

Case No. Revision Petition No. 2716 Of 2016

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bahadur Srivastav, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Nikhil Jain & Mr. Manoj Kumar Saxena, Advocates

Click Here To Read/Download Order