Ms. Yasmin Sultana & Ors.                       .... Appellants
Vs.
Dr. Rupaben D.Patel & Ors.                      .... Respondents

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suhas C.Sen, President, Dr. (Mrs.) R.Thamarajakshi, Member, Mr. S.P.Bagla, Member, Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.L.Choudhary, Member, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member 

C.L.Chaudhry, J. Member

     This appeal is directed against the order dated 8th November, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat. The Complainants Nos. 1 and 2 were the husband and the wife. They approached the State Commission, Gujarat, for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,01,980/- for the negligence in the treatment of Complainant No.1, Yasmin Sultana, mental agony, financial loss, etc.; Rs. 1 lakh for the death of newly born child caused by the negligence of the Opposite Parties, i.e., Dr. Rupaben D.Patel and Ayeshaben Showkath Saiyed.

     The facts as disclosed in the complaint were that the Complainant No.1 had consulted Respondent No.1, Dr. Rupaben D.Patel on 27th June, 1992 as she was pregnant and her name was registered for delivery in the Ashirvad Hospital of the Respondent No.1. On 4th July, 1992 the Complainant had abdominal pain and therefore, she was taken to hospital of Respondent No. 1 at about 11.00 PM. At that time the Respondent No.1 was not present in the hospital, but Respondent No.2, Nurse, was told about the pains that the complainant was having at that time. During the examination of the Complainant by the Respondent No.2, the Complainant No.1 felt much pain and started bleeding. The Respondent No.2 called the Respondent No.1 and when she arrived, the Complainant No.1 was having profuse bleeding. On examination by the Respondent No.1 she felt that two bottles of blood was needed for transfusion. The Complainant No.1 was advised to apply force and in case normal delivery was not possible, caesarean was to be done. The Complainant No.1 had delivered the male child at about 12.35 at night. The mouth and nose of the child had blood spread on it and it appeared that some injuries were caused on the body of the child. The weight of the child, as informed, was 3 kgs. 200 gms. Dr. Bharat Kothari, Paediatrician was called and he started treating the child. On an inquiry, the Respondent No.1 did not state about the health and condition of the child. At about 3.00 AM the Complainant came to know that the child had expired. The blood transfusion to Complainant No.1 could not successfully be done. The Complainant was removed to a special room where she was treated by the Respondent No.1. The stitches were removed on 11th July, 1992 and the Complainant waswas discharged from hospital on 13th July, 1992. The case set up by the Complainants was that on 4th July, 1992 the Complainant No.1 had gone to the Hospital of Respondent No.1 for the purpose of check up as it was not the due date for delivery but because of the carelessness of the Respondent No.2, the employee of the Respondent No.1, bleeding started and the delivery took place. In these premises the compensation was claimed.

     The complaint was contested on behalf of the Respondents. In the written version filed by the Respondents, it was stated that immediately after the Complainant was taken to nursing home, the Respondent No.1 was informed and she came and treated the Complainant No.1. On examination she found that the Complainant No.1 had true labour pain and bleeding per vagina was noted and delivery process had started. The child to be borne was premature, i.e., about 30/32 weeks of gestation and was regular. Head of the child descended. Respondent No.1 decided that vaginal delivery would be in the best interest of mother and child as vaginal examination was found to be possible. In the interests of mother and child, Amniotomy (rupture of membrane) was done to enhance the delivery process. Outlet forceps was applied to protect the skull of the child and brain injury and also to cut short the second stage of delivery. It was suggested to get the blood from Valsad as no blood bank facility was available at Vapi. The Respondent No.1 thought that the child to be born was expected to be premature and services of paediatrician were necessary and, therefore, Dr. Bharat Kothari was called as the expert opinion of the management of the child was thought to be of great advantage to the child. The delivery was premature and the weight of the child was only 2 kgs. Dr. Kothari started treatment of the child, but the child expired at about 5.00 A.M.

After considering the material placed on record by the parties, the State Commission returned the finding that the circumstances established that no unusual thing had happened and no negligence was shown by the opponents. After the delivery, the Complainant was kept in the Hospital up to 11th July, 1992 and was to be discharged on that date, but at the request of the Complainants, she was kept for two more days. Subsequently, the 

     Complainant No.1 was examined on 1-8-1992 but till that date also she had no grievance against the Opposite Party for any treatment or negligence. If at all that would have been the fact, then the Complainant would not have gone for consultation on 1-8-1992 or would have taken immediate action against the Opponents. The Respondent No.1 requisitioned the services of Dr. Bharat Kothari even before delivery and Dr. Kothari attended and took charge of the treatment of the child. The very fact that Paeditrician was called and he was attending on the child established the due care and caution which the Opposite Party had taken even for the child. In view of the finding of the State Commission, the complaint was dismissed.

     The Complainants have filed the present appeal assailing the judgement of the State Commission. Appellant No.2, Farooq Mahamadbhai Nalla appeared in person and he submitted that the order of the State Commission was contrary to facts and law. The State Commission returned wrong finding that there was no negligence on the part of the Respondents. The State Commission did not properly appreciate the allegations of the Complainants which stood substantiated by the affidavits of the Appellants.

     We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. In our opinion the contention of the Appellants has no force. We have perused the order of the State Commission and the material placed on the record. The State Commission had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and the material placed on record by the parties. The finding is based on appreciation of evidence. The State Commission arrived at a correct finding after elaborate analysis of the evidence placed on record. The State Commission has given detailed reasons for arriving at a conclusion. We see no legal infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. The State Commission was right in holding that the complaints had failed to establish the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. As a result, it follows that the appeal is without merit and it is dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs.