AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE brief facts of this case are that respondent no.1/complainant filed a complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (for short as ?District Forum?) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence against the petitioner and respondent no.2 in conducting the delayed cesarean operation of his wife leading to death of baby due to asphyscia two days after delivery in respondent no.2 hospital. Respondent no.1 claimed a compensation of Rs.200,000/- from the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 for their professional negligence for causing the sufferings, pain and agony to respondent no.1?s wife.
THE complaint filed before the District Forum was contested by petitioner as well as respondent no.2. District Forum, vide its order dated 7.2.2005, held that it is a clear case of medical negligence and there is deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 and allowed the complaint of respondent no.1 and directed petitioner/respondent no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to respondent no.1.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner and respondent no.2 filed an appeal before the State Commission.
THE State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and reduced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- and also awarded interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of the complaint. State Commission in its impugned order in para no.9 has observed; "On the basis of evidence produced it is not possible to conclude that the first opposite party as such neglected the woman and did not conduct the caesarean surgery in time".
SIMILARLY, in para no.11 of the order, State Commission has observed; "In the instant case, the failure to bestow adequate attention is evident from the fact that foetal heart beat monitoring was not done after the date of admission when the woman was admitted with pain and effacement although the evidence is not sufficient to hold that the baby died due to the negligence of the opposite parties."
While in para no.10 of the impugned order State Commission held; "A failure to monitor foetal heart rate from the date of admission amounts to negligence."
In view of the contradictory findings given by the State Commission with regard to medical negligence, we find that matter requires consideration.
HENCE, notice of the main petition as well as stay application to the respondents for 16.7.2012.
IN the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing subject to the petitioner?s depositing 50% of the awarded amount with the District Forum. On receipt of the said amount, District Forum shall deposit the same in fixed deposit initially, for a period of one year, in a nationalized bank.