MALKHAN SINGH vs MODERN X-RAY SONOGRAPHY AND PATHO CENTRE

THIS is a complaint under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') to claim compensation of Rs. 5,45,000/- for deficiency in service by the opposite party No. 1 in allegedly giving a wrong sonography report dated 13.6.1995 (Exhibit C-1) of the pregnancy of his wife Vimal wherein the conclusion was Intrauterine Fatal Death sonographic age according to femur length is 13 weeks of Gestation. The complainant avers that on this report, the opposite party No. 1 advised immediately to get his wife aborted, however, she did not undergo for abortion and got her examined from other Doctors namely, Dr. Smt. A Agrawal of Pipariya, Dr. Shaila Muley of Betul. Dr. Muley examined the wife of the complainant on 11.10.1995 and 12.10.1995, prescriptions are Exhibits C-3 and C-4. In Exhibit C-4 the period of pregnancy is recorded as 10-12 weeks. In Ex. C-3 past history is recorded of vesicular mole two years back. The complainant alleged that his wife gave birth to a male child on 2.1.1998, the photocopy of the certificate issued by the Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Pipariya, Distt, Hoshangabad is Exhibit it C-5. The complainant alleged that because of the wrong sonography report the complainant had to take his wife to various Doctors and spent Rs. 45,000/- till the child was not born. Therefore, the complainant claimed compensation for Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental pain and sufferings and Rs. 45,000/-, the amount of expenses incurred in treatment.

THE complaint was resisted. It is submitted that the sonography report was correct as it showed on 13.8.1995, the Intrauterine Fatal Death, on that the complainant got his wife aborted. After abortion the complainant''s wife conceived again having pregnancy on 11.10.1995 of 10 to 12 weeks. It is also averred that there is absolutely no authentic report that it is the complainant''s wife or some other woman who delivered a child on 2.1.1996. From the documents filed by the complainant, it is evident that the complainant''s wife suffered from vesicular mole, which is a disease which kills foetus inside the uterus which is generally repeated. THE opposite party did not give any treatment it is for the Gynecologist to give treatment, the report of sonography was correct. A dead foetus naturally also gets aborted and many times Gynecologist did not advise for immediate abortion. It is the Gynecologist who is the best Judge on medical question for treatment. THE sonography report dated 13.8.1995 of the female was of intrauterine fatal death of famur length of 13 weeks who will deliver a baby on 2.1.1996 is an impossibility which is evident from the document Nos. 4 and 5 filed by the complainant. THE document Nos. 4 and 5 are febricated documents so as to claim compensation and a false and frivolous complaint has been filed by the complainant hence, a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 26 of the Act be awarded. We have heard Mr. Mohan Chouksey, learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. R.C. Sobhani, learned Counsel for the opposite parties and on reappraisal of evidence on record in particular, the disputed sonography report dated 13.6.1995 (Exhibit C-1), the prescription of Dr. A. Agrawal which does not specify the pregnancy, the prescriptions of Dr. Shaila Muley dated 11.10.1995 and 12.10.1995 (Exhibit C-4 and C-3) which clearly create a doubt about the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint of the complainant. Annexures C-4 speaks of the pregnancy of 10-12 weeks this itself suggests that after abortion, the complainant''s wife conceived again. There is no explanation on behalf of the complainant that how the pregnancy of 10-12 weeks is written by Dr. Shaila Muley. It is a well-known fact that when a pregnant lady consults the Gynecologist, the gives the correct information about her conceivement or pregnancy. In view of Exhibit C-4 it is evidently clear that it was the pregnancy after abortion. The fact of abortion has been suppressed by the complainant. The wife of the complainant has not filed her affidavit nor appeared in witness box to speak the truth about her past disease of vesicular mole and of abortion and delivery of the baby whether it was of first pregnancy or second pregnancy after abortion. Taking all circumstances together and the fact that the complainant has not filed any affidavit of his wife or of the Doctors who have treated her during pregnancy and of the Assistant Surgeon who gave a certificate, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the sonography report dated 13.6.1995 was incorrect and, therefore, there was deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party No. 1.

As to costs it is submitted that the complainant is a poor and an illiterate person who was not aware of the fact that he would have to keep all records in continuity, therefore, he be not burdened with costs.

IN view of the above, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties. Complaint dismissed.