2nd Internal Assessment – Law of Torts

Consumer complaint drafting

Topic
‘Dr.Ajayi Bhandari v. Maxwell Hospitals Ltd.’

NAME: Rijul Tripathy

DIVISION: A

PRN: 22010126017

COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2022-2027
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. FACTS OF THE CASE..........................................................................3

2. INTRODUCTION:..................................................................................5

3. CAUSE OF ACTION:............................................................................5

4. TRANSACTION:....................................................................................6

5. NATURE OF COMPLAINT:.................................................................6

6. DEFENCE:..............................................................................................7

7. JURISDICTION:.....................................................................................7

8. PRAYER:................................................................................................8

9. VERIFICATION.....................................................................................8
 FACTS OF THE CASE

I. The complainant, Dr.Ajayi Bhandari was admitted in opposite party’s institution

(Hereinafter referred to as ‘the hospital’) during her pregnancy on 16th April, 2021 for
stress marks on the amniotic sac.
II. As no specialist or senior doctor was on duty , she was examined by senior interns
who later on gave a report to the chief of paediatric surgery and senior doctor Krityam
Madan who prescribed the administration of Syntocinon to catalyse the delivery
process.
III. The complainant being a doctor herself noticed that the dosage was unnaturally high
and that the foetal heart rate was ebbing away on 18th April, 2021, however despite
her desperate calls immediate attention was not provided.
IV. Medical attention was provided and the complainant was urgently sent to the OT at
4:23 AM on 18th April, 2021 for an emergency caesarean delivery and delivered a
baby boy named Sparsh.
V. The baby had difficulties breathing and latching on to suck milk and was placed in
NICU till 24th April, 2021 and was subsequently discharged with the mother.
VI. She was readmitted to the same hospital after 5 months for clinical seizures, the
subsequent EEG and CT scans showed severe Cerebral Atrophy which later led to
severe delays in basic milestones of growth including ability to hold up the head and
mental retardation.
VII. The baby was later taken to the USA for treatment where an expert panel declared
that delays in administration of medical treatment and excessive dosage of
synotocinon led to sever asphyxiation of the child in developmental stages and
declared the child 80% disabled
VIII. On 25th July, 2022, the complainant filed the complaint with the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), requesting reparation for the claimed
negligence during delivery and the ensuing disabilities the infant experienced.
 Consumer complaint drafting

BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF: 

Dr.Ajayi Bhandari

40, General surgeon

13/234,

Vasundhara, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh - 201012                   .................... COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Maxwell hospitals Ltd.

6 Community Centre,
Saket,
New Delhi – 110017 .................. OPPOSITE PARTY

Consumer complaint number 3658/2014

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The complainants/ complainant most respectfully states or states as under:

INTRODUCTION:

The complainant, Dr.Ajayi Bhandari was admitted in opposite party’s institution (Hereinafter
referred to as ‘the hospital’) during her pregnancy on 16th April, 2021 for stress marks on the
amniotic sac. Thus, it is humbly asserted that as the complainant was under the direct care
and supervision of the Dr. Krityam Madan, there exists a fiduciary relationship between him
and the complainant. We can also ascertain that there exists a substantial relationship between
the complainant and the opposite party and the opposite party and Dr.Krityam Madan.

CAUSE OF ACTION:

Since the opposite party has on many occasions claimed to be the leader in the paediatric
surgery and post operational care in the state, it has become a preferred choice of to-be
parents to seek medical attention and intervention. The opposite party has also advertised and
flaunted the capabilities and commendations of its chief of paediatric surgery Dr.Krityam
Madan and the availability of senior specialists round the clock. Owing to these assertions on
the part of the opposite party the complainants preferred being under the care of the opposite
party for their moment of ultimate happiness when they welcome their child into this world.

Hence, in furtherance of the contractual arrangement between the complainant and the
opposite party it was its moral and professional obligation to provide:

i. 24x7 emergency pre-natal care

ii. Diagnostics by a competent senior doctor
iii. Constant supervision by head nurses specialized in pregnancy
iv. The right drugs in the right quantity
v. Post operational and post-natal care to the mother and the child

And uphold any other reasonable standards of care towards the complainant or any other
patient, which the hospital has failed to do.

 
TRANSACTION:

 All the costs and expenses that the complainants have had to bear are enclosed within:

Particulars Date Ref. ID Amount in

Rs.

Hospital fee 16th April, 2021 – R6TS GUKFHDG 3,40,57,535

In India & USA 27th January, 2022 DSI2353

Tests and reports 16th April, 2021 – GYSDB23, STKN56, 15,93,700

27th January, 2022 68200F , 68DGBBS,
TSNGO87, GSRN89
Travel proceeds 28th November, FEUBT45 GU862 4,30,400
2021 GTS234

Legal fee 25th July, 2022 HGDT 6683 GSYRB 20,25,000

9683

Misc. Legal 25th July, 2022 382562895 1,00,000

Expenses

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

In light of the aforementioned facts, the complainant Dr. Ajayi Bhandari, via this complaint
seeks to claim compensation for the expenses she occurred and for the mental agony that was
caused to her due to the gross negligence of the doctors and the hospital authorities which
subsequently led to the retardation and loss of the quality of life of her child.

This claim is substantiated on the grounds that:

i. Deficiency of service: There was a clear lack on the part of the doctors and
the hospital authorities who failed to provide reasonable care to the complainant by
 not having competent nurses or doctors who could successfully examine and diagnose
the patient.
ii. Negligence: The hospital and the doctor were negligent in their handling of
the complainant as they prescribed an unnaturally high dosage of Synotocinon and
failed to exercise reasonable care while treating the patient and delayed the
administration oof surgical medical intervention.
iii. False & misleading advertising: The hospital engaged in false and
misleading advertising by overly exaggerating the capabilities of Dr.Krityam Madan
and without any substantial backing declared themselves leaders in this field. They
also falsely stated that they provide 24x7 round the clock specialist coverage by
senior doctors and head nurses. Such contentions made the misrepresented their
capabilities and made people flock to the hospital. 

DEFENCE:
The Counsel on behalf of the Complainant seeks action & establish the wrongdoing of the
opposite party by invoking the following statutes and principles:

A. Section 20 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20191: Discontinuation of practices

which are unfair and prejudicial to consumers' interest
B. Section 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20192: Discontinuation or
modification of misleading advertisement
C. Section 21 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 3: Impose on manufacturer or
endorser a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees
D. Section 21 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20194: Prohibit the endorser of a
false or misleading advertisement from advertising to the extent of 1 year.
E. Section 39 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20195: Direct the opposite party
to return to the complainant the price, or, the charges paid by the complainant along
with interest.

1
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 20(c), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
2
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 21(1), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
3
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 21(2), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
4
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 21(3), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
5
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 39(1)(c), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
 F. Section 39 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 6: Direct the opposite party
to pay such amount as awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss or
injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the opposite party.
G. Section 39 (1) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20197: Remove the defects in
goods or deficiencies in the services in question;
H. Section 39 (1) (l) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 8: Issue corrective
advertisement to neutralise the effect of misleading advertisement at the cost of the
opposite party responsible for issuing such misleading advertisement
I. Section 85 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20199: Hold liable the service
provider for any fault or imperfection or deficiency or inadequaty in quality in his
service.
J. Section 85 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 201910: Hold the service provider
liable for any act of omission or commission or negligence or conscious withholding
any information
K. Section 89 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 201911: Punish the service provider
who causes a false or misleading advertisement with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees

JURISDICTION:
As the total amount involved is more than Rupees 2 crore, the complaint is being filed with
the

Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

As the complaint was filed on 25th July, 2022 (1 year, 3 months, 7 days after the first fault
appeared) and is within the 2-year limitation period as specified under Section 69 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.12

6
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 39(1)(d), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
7
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 39(1)(f), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
8
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 39(1)(l), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
9
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 85(a), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
10
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 85(b), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
11
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 89(a), Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
12
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 69, Act 35, Acts of Indian Parliament (2019)
PRAYER:
 

Thus in the light of the facts submitted and issues raised the complainant humbly prays that
the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission be pleased to :

I. GRANT to Dr.Ajayi Bhandari Rs. 5,00,00,000 for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary
losses faced by her.
II. UNDERTAKE punitive actions to discourage such acts committed by doctors and
hospitals
III. PASS any order that the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

PLACE:   Saket, New Delhi                                                       

Signature

DATED:   25th July 2022 Dr.Ajayi Bhandari

VERIFICATION

I Ajayi Bhandari resident of 13/234, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP- 201012, hereby declare
that I have not misrepresented any facts nor have tried to hide any information in my above
complaint. All the facts mentioned herein are true to the best of my knowledge.

                                                           

Dr. Ajayi Bhandari

Please note: The affidavit should be notarized before further copies of complaint set are
made for submission.