MOOT PROBLEM

Mrs. Gaurangi visited a reputed maternity care home named SUNRISE HOSPITAL,
INDORE on February 25th, 2012 for consultation and treatment about her pregnancy, Dr.
Harseeta examined her and confirmed pregnancy. Dr. Harseeta after examination confirmed and
informed her that it was a normal pregnancy and assured her nothing to worry about it and
prescribing her certain health supplements. Mrs. Gaurangi was under treatment of Sunrise
Hospital from February 25th, 2012 to March 16th, 2012 where Dr. Harseeta was the consultant
and treating doctor. During this Period from time to time she visited the hospital for further
checkup as suggested by Dr. Harseeta. The doctor time and again assured her that pregnancy was
absolutely normal. Mrs. Gaurangi felt severe abdominal pain as also slight bleeding, so she again
visited the said hospital on March 17 th, 2012 for consultation and treatment. On the basis of
certain diagnostic tests and examinations carried out by the hospital, which were recommended
by the treating doctor, certain medicines were prescribed by Dr. Henery of the said hospital, on
the instructions of Dr. Harseeta. She was called for further follow up after 15 days.

Mrs. Gaurangi started having abdominal pain also spotted blood, therefore she visited the
hospital on April 2nd, 2012 for further treatment. After examination Dr. Harseeta advised her
some further tests which were done outside the hospital by another diagnostic centre, as
recommended by the treating doctor. After studying these reports Dr. Harseeta declared that
Gaurangi has suffered a miscarriage and advised her to undergo the process of Dilation and
Curettage (hereinafter referred to as D&C). On April 3rd, 2012 D&C was performed in the
Sunrise Hospital and treating doctor Harseeta discharged her on the very same day. No tissues or
Retained Products of Conception (hereinafter referred to as RPOC) were found during the
process of D&C for which it is usually preformed. In discharge summary incomplete abortion
was mentioned.

Even after this process and before discharge the patient Mrs. Gaurangi complained of constant
abdominal pain and flow of blood which was termed as normal by the doctor and assured the
patient that everything is normal. The treating doctor advised follow up after seven days.
The patient visited the above named hospital on April 17th, 2012 in the state of emergency
complaining of severe pain and bleeding for which the duty doctor prescribed certain medicines
and pain killer and informed the patient that this problem is due to uterine infection.

The patient’s condition was deteriorating which she could not stand and was on a wheel chair all
the time but instead of admitted her as indoor patient for treatment she was advised to go home
ignoring her serious condition.

The next day as the patient was still having severe abdominal pain and bleeding she consulted
the treating doctor Dr. Harseeta of Sunrise Hospital on cell phone and informed her about pain
and suffering for which the doctor advised a pain killer injection, which was injected to her but
the patient had no relief.

On April 18th, 2012 the patient still suffering from abdominal pain and bleeding consulted
another Dr. Parneeta of maternity help centre named Patel Hospital where she was diagnosed
with “Extra Uterine Ectopic Pregnancy” which is not a normal pregnancy in medical
terminology. On a query from Dr. Parneeta the patient informed her above the treatment given to
her by Sunrise Hospital. Dr. Parneeta was of the opinion that the D&C done at Sunrise Hospital
was not at all required and the patient ought to have been treated for Ectopic Pregnancy.

Dr. Parneeta and other doctors at Patel Hospital advised for Ultra Sonography (hereinafter
referred to us USG), which was done. The USG showed severally ruptured fallopian tube and
huge formation of blood clots. The doctors sensing the severity of situation removed the
fallopian tube of the patient by surgical operation, to save the life of patient.

On April 20th, 2014 the patient filed a claim for damages to the tune of Rs. 50, 00,000/- before
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State
Commission) on the ground of negligence in treatment and compensation etc.

In reply Sunrise Hospital stated that every reasonable care has been taken during the treatment of
patient Mrs. Gaurangi and there was no negligence on the part of treating doctors at the hospital.
The USG was advised by the treating doctor and as the Radiographer of the hospital was on
leave the patient was advised to get the USG done from any diagnostic centre of her choice. This
USG showed minimal ROPC interior cavity, both adnexa normal which means a technically
uterine pregnancy with spontaneous miscarriage. The report did not disclose any extra uterine
pregnancy; no retained products were seen inside uterus. Therefore D&C was advised. This
procedure being day care and patient being vitally stable and comfortable was given then best
treatment and there was no negligence on the part of any doctor of the Hospital as such the claim
be dismissed with costs being false & vexations. The Hospital also pleaded that the claim is
barred by limitation prescribed under the law.

The State Commission dismissed the claim of the claimant on the grounds that there was no
negligence on the part of treating doctors as also the claim having being barred by limitation.
Dissatisfied by this verdict of the State Commission the claimant patient approached the
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as National
Commission). The National Commission reverted the findings of the State Commission holding
the doctors guilty of negligence and awarded a sum of Rs. 25, 00,000/- to the claimant on
account of compensation and also found the complaint to be within the prescribed period of
limitation.

The Hospital, feeling arrived by the verdict of National Commission filed an appeal before Court
is to hear the parties on following issues.

Q1. Was there any professional negligence on the part of treating Doctors?

Q2. Whether the claim is within limitation prescribed by law?

The parties can frame any other issue relevant for the disposal of case.

Relevant Law and Reference

1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986