The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed an appeal alleging medical negligence in connection with a miscarriage, holding that the complainants failed to produce any material evidence demonstrating lapse in the standard of care or professional negligence on the part of the treating doctor. The Bench comprising President Kumkum Rani and Member B.S. Manral upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, which had dismissed the consumer complaint, and concluded that no deficiency in service was established.
The complainants, Neeraj Sharma and his wife Deepshikha Sharma, had availed pregnancy treatment at Raja Ram Hospital–Maternity & Trauma Centre under the supervision of Dr. Sarita Gupta after paying the required consultation charges from time to time. During the course of treatment between June and October 2013, the patient underwent regular medical check-ups and diagnostic tests and was informed that the reports were normal and the fetus was healthy.
During the night intervening 26–27 October 2013, the patient developed abdominal pain and was taken to the treating doctor, who conducted an emergency examination and prescribed medication, assuring that there was no cause for concern and that the condition of the fetus was normal. The complainants alleged that despite persistent pain and repeated consultations, they continued to be assured that everything was normal.
On 7 November 2013, an ultrasound examination revealed that the fetus had died, causing shock and mental agony to the complainants. The complainants alleged that when they questioned the doctor regarding the cause of fetal death, they were asked to seek treatment elsewhere. On the following day, the patient consulted another doctor who advised immediate medical termination of pregnancy, and the pregnancy was subsequently terminated at another maternity centre. Alleging that the death of the six-month-old fetus resulted from negligent treatment and wrong medication, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar. The District Commission dismissed the complaint, following which the present appeal was filed before the State Commission.
The opposite parties contended that the patient had been treated strictly in accordance with established medical standards and protocols. The treating doctor submitted that she was a qualified and experienced gynecologist and that proper treatment and advice had been provided at every stage. It was argued that the patient did not consistently adhere to medical advice, particularly with regard to timely ultrasound examinations and follow-up consultations, and that regular treatment depended upon the patient’s compliance with medical advice. The opposite parties further relied on medical records from the maternity centre where termination of pregnancy was performed, which showed that the patient’s vital parameters and blood pressure were normal and stable, thereby refuting allegations that her life had been endangered due to negligence. The hospital supported the submissions of the treating doctor and denied any deficiency in service.
The Commission observed that the allegation of medical negligence had earlier been examined in criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An Expert Committee constituted in those proceedings concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor, and the criminal complaint was dismissed on the basis of that report. The Commission also took note of the order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, which held: “In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent No. 2 has failed to make out any case of medical negligence against the applicant.”