MANISH AGARWAL vs ADMINISTRATOR, KAMLA NEHRU MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

THIS complaint has been filed by Manish Agarwal against the Administrator, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad. The complainant, in the complaint, has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of mental torture, physical strain, etc.

THE facts of the case in brief are that the complainant''s wife, Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, was admitted to Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad on 8.9.1994. It was the case of first delivery. A sum of Rs. 800/- was also deposited towards expenses. On 9.9.1994 normal delivery took place at about 8.40 a.m. After delivery the Nurse handed over a female baby to Smt. Asha Agarwal, mother of the complainant, after taking her signature about the delivery of the child. THE complainant''s wife remained in the hospital from 8.9.1994 to 12.9.1994 and was discharged on 13.9.1994 in the forenoon. A sum of Rs. 500/- was also paid at that time. THE complainant was told at the time of obtaining the bill of the above amount that this amount is being charged on account of providing phototherapy service. This fact was wrong as this service charge is not levied when a normal child is born. This charge may kindly be got refunded and the birth certificate be given to the complainant as it was not given to the complainant after 2/3 days as promised by the hospital Authorities. When the complainant went to take the birth certificate and the amount on 16.9.1994 he was given a discharge card and a computerized birth certificate dated 13.9.1994 but the complainant was not given the amount which was charged from him on account of phototherapy. When the complainant came to his residence and perused the documents given to him he found to his utter surprise that on 9.9.1994 a male child was delivered while a daughter was handed over to her. The complainant again visited the hospital in order to enquire into the fact but found that in all the papers of the hospital manipulation was done. Originally a male child was born to complainant''s wife on 9.9.1994 but wrong entry has been made and the signatures have been wrongly obtained on the writing that a female child was born. These birth certificates etc. were taken back by the hospital staff. It is further alleged that after some time the complainant tried to take all the documents from the hospital Authorities which were forcibly taken from him but the staff did not hand over the certificates and behaved very rudely.

In the written statement filed on behalf of Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad, it is alleged that Dr. Meena Duggal is an employee of the State Government and is working in Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. She has been attached with this hospital under an agreement. She is not on the pay roll or under the administrative control of this hospital. For all purposes she is a State Government employee. The deposit of Rs. 800/- is admitted. It is alleged that Smt. Asha Agarwal, mother-in-law of the complainant had endorsed on the record of Labour Room that she has taken back a living female child. This endorsement was made immediately after the delivery of the child on 9.9.1994. All other facts alleged by the complainant have been denied.

IN the replication it has been alleged that in the beginning it was written that a living male child has been received which was later-on changed to female baby. It is alleged that before the word "male", "fe" was added. This is a forgery which has been committed by the hospital Authorities. There is deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite party by making these manipulations and not delivering the male child to the complainant. The parties have lead evidence in support of their respective contentions.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. The only question which requires determination in the present case is as to whether a male child or a female child was born to the wife of the complainant at the hospital of the opposite party. There is a writing, a copy of which has been filed. This writing was executed at 8 a.m. on 9.9.1994 on the date of delivery. It is signed by Mrs. Asha Agarwal, who is the mother of the complainant that a female child was born which was taken over by the mother of the complainant. The second paper which has been filed is dated 12.9.1994 which says that a female child is being taken away on his own responsibility and now there is no complaint against any employee of the hospital. This writing was executed on the date of discharge on 12.9.1994. These two papers clearly goes to show that a female child was born which was taken away by the mother-in-law of the complainant. On 19.8.1998 an application was moved by the opposite party mentioning therein that on 9.9.1994 a female child was born to Mrs. Ranjana Agarwal and the only test which can prove this fact is DNA test of the female child in question and her mother. Against this application, an application has been filed on 20.1.1999 mentioning therein that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and has played fraud which is clear from the documents on record. It is further alleged that DNA test is done only in those cases where it is to be found as to whether a particular child belongs to which of the couple. It is also mentioned that at the time of handing over the child after the delivery, the other child would have also been produced then the DNA test would have helped. We are unable to understand the objection which has been raised by the complainant to the DNA test. The DNA test was required to be conducted in order to determine whether the child, the delivery of which was made by the hospital Authorities to the complainant, was born to the wife of the complainant or not. There is no question of producing the other child for the DNA test. Had the DNA test been conducted it would have conclusively proved whether the child was born to the complainant or not. There is no other definite way to prove this fact other than the DNA test. Non-concurrence of complainant for conducting DNA test of the child and his mother (wife of the complainant) raises a presumption against the case of the complainant.

MUCH stress has been made by the learned Counsel for the complainant on the original discharge certificate issued by the hospital Authorities in which the word "male" has been given before the word "child". On the basis of this discharge certificate alone it cannot be said that the child born to the complainant''s wife was a male child, especially when all the papers on record indicate that a female child was handed over to the mother of the complainant immediately after the delivery. Thus it can be said to be a mistake on the part of the officials who issued this certificate.

THUS on the basis of evidence, we find that the case of the complainant has not been proved the fact that a male child was born to his wife and a female child was handed over to his wife. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. Order The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party within a period of two months. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from today. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint dismissed with cost.