Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/281/2019

1.The Head of the Department , Department of Obstertics & Gynalcology, Govt Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem.And 2 Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.N.Selvaraj S/o Narayanasamy, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Mohanasundaram line veedu, Avathipalayam, Pal - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.T.Ravikumar

03 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH               PRESIDENT

Tmt  Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.281/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.71/2012 on the file of the DCDRC, Salem)

 

      DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF MARCH 2022  

 

1.       The Head of Department

    Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

    Govt. Mohan Kumaramangalam  

    Medical College Hospital ,   Salem

 

2. The Dean                                                                            

     Govt. Mohan Kumaramangalam                                                  

      Medical College Hospital,  Salem       

 

3. The Government of Tamil Nadu                                         Mr.T.Ravikumar

    Rep. by its District Collector                                                 Counsel for

    Salem District, Collectorate, Salem                          Appellants / Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

 

1.       N.Selvaraj

S/o. Narayanasamy

Ellaiamman Kovil Street

Mohanasundaram Line Veedu

Avathipalayam                                                        M/s. D.Gopal

Pallipalayam Agraharam Post                                     Counsel for

Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal                       1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.       Dr. Bharathi

          Assistant Professor

          Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology              M/s. R.Jayaprakash

          Govt. Mohan Kumaramangalam                                    Counsel for

          Medical College Hospital ,    Salem              2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.11.5.2018 in CC.No.71/2012.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellant/1^st opposite party as against the order dt.11.5.2018 passed by the District Commission, Salem, in CC.No.71/2012 by allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent/ Complainant herein. 

 

2.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

           The complainant is a coolie worker living in a very poor economic condition.  He conducted his daughter Indirani’s marriage on 30.11.2008.  After marriage she consummated and she was taking regular health checkup and monitoring her health condition in the Government Primary Health Centre, Salem District.  On 15.10.2010, the complainant’s daughter developed labor pain, hence immediately she was rushed to Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Hospital, Salem, alongwith her husband, and was admitted.  On the next day on 16.10.2010 at about 3.45 pm., the complainant’s daughter delivered a male child by natural course without any surgery.  After two hours of delivery, the complainant and his wife were permitted to see the mother and child, and they were looking very normal.  While so, all of a sudden the complainant’s daughter Indirani lost her conscious step by step and on noticing the same, they informed the ward nurse and staff of the opposite party hospital.  But they were very casual and never bothered about the same, and they have scolded with harsh and filthy words.  The complainant’s daughter  had  experienced   continuous oozing of blood from her body, and on noticing the same the staffs and nurses left the patient unattended.  After sometime Indirani was taken to emergency care unit, and was in Emergency care unit for 5 day and died on 21.10.2010 at 1.00 pm.  But the Salem Government Hospital staffs and doctors were very particular about the disposal of the body.  The death had been occurred only due to the negligence of the doctors of the opposite party hospital.  Hence the complainant had come forward with this complaint. 

 

3.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties by filing their version as follows:

          The complainant’s daughter delivered a male child on 16.10.2010 at 3.45 pm.  Though it was a normal delivery without ceasarian section, it was an assisted vaginal delivery with episiotomy.  The opposite party saw the patient during and after delivery with utmost care and the patient was stable and her vital signs were normal.  The patient was last seen by the doctor at 7.30 pm and the condition of the patient was normal and this opposite party left to the operation theatre by 8.00 pm.  When the opposite party was in the theatre, performing ceasarian operation for another patient, it was informed from the house surgeon and the ward staff that the patient Indirani developed breathlessness.  Since she was in the operation theatre, she has instructed the house surgeon and the ward staff to inform the duty Assistant Physician and ordered investigations like ECG and   instructed to give nasal oxygen to the patient and monitor the vital signs.  The duty Assistant physician Dr.Loganathan rushed to the labour ward immediately and since the patient was unconscious, did not respond to painful stimuli and abnormal sounds were heard from the lungs and with lesser SPO2.  Hence an endo tracheal tube was inserted and was given ambu bag ventilation, and other supporting measures including necessary drugs alongwith IV fluids.  The opposite party went to the patient straight from the operation theatre and saw the patient by 9.45 p.m.  The CRRI and the ward staff informed this opposite party about the condition of the patient within few minutes of the patient developing breathlessness.  Hence it is incorrect to say that the ward staff and the doctors and nurses never bothered about the patient.  When the opposite party examined the patient at 9.45 p.m, the patient was unconscious and it was noticed that the uterus was well contracted and there was no abnormal bleeding.  The anesthetist also saw the patient at 9.50 pm., and on his advice she was shifted to IRCU for respiratory and circulatory care with 24 hours continuous monitoring.  It is incorrect to say that the patient was shifted to Emergency Care Unit after lapse of several hours.  Extreme care was taken and there was absolutely no delay in attending the patient.  After the patient was shifted to IRCU, both the opposite party and the anesthetist were constantly monitoring the condition of the patient.  The opposite party left the hospital by 7.30 am on 17.10.2010 and there  was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  It is incorrect to say that Indirani died due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  Every effort was taken to save the patient.  Thus they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.       In order to prove the case, proof affidavits were filed alongwith documents. On the side of the complainant 18 documents were filed which were marked as Ex.A1 to A18 and 2 documents filed on the side of the opposite parties which were marked as Ex.B1 and B2. 

 

5.       The District Commission, after analysing the evidence had come to the conclusion that on perusal of records it was found that from 7.30 pm to 9 pm., there was no staff to look after the patient and no one bothered to attend the patient, and thus came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 to 4 hospital, and awarded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation by way of deposit in the name of minor son alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-.   The complaint against the 1^st opposite party was dismissed.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, this present appeal is filed by the appellant opposite parties 2 to 4. 

 

6.       The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the condition of the patient was continuously monitored from time to time and the patient was attended by the 2^nd respondent on 16.10.2010 at about 1.30 pm and was continuously monitored for delivery.  At 3.45 pm a live baby boy was born weighing 3 Kg.  The patient was seen by the 2^nd Respondent at 5.30 pm and at 7.30 pm on 19.10.2010.  At about 8 pm as the 2^nd Respondent had to perform another surgery she went to the operation theatre.  In the operation theatre, during the course of the surgery it was informed by the CRRI that the patient had developed breathlessness about 9.30 pm.  Since the 2^nd Respondent was in another procedure, she could not attend immediately, but immediately after the surgery which was over by 9.45 pm, the 2^nd Respondent personally attended the patient.   Ambu bag ventilator support was given to her and then she was put on mechanical ventilator.  As seen from the case sheet recordings every two hours there are reading about the prognosis of the patient.  The patient was conscious and the condition of the patient was informed to the Chief of the Unit and on her instructions the attendants of the patient were informed at about 7.50 am.  Blood was transfused by about 11.15 am on 17.10.2010 and there were no immediate allergic reactions.  Necessary treatment was continued on the advice of multidisciplinary specialists and the patient was in order with proper care.  Despite the best efforts the patient died at 1 am on 21.10.2010.  The cause of death is noted as pulmonary embolism/ multi organ failure.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on their part.  But ignoring all these facts, the District Commission has awarded compensation.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7.       Countering the said submission, the learned counsel for the 1^st Respondent/ complainant had submitted that the opposite party had not produced evidence to show that what is the standard protocol and how they are followed  at the time of treatment was not established.  As mentioned in the case sheets the time mismatched and they started treatment in delayed manner.  As per their version the duty doctor was in the operation theatre upto 9.45 pm, whereas the bleeding started at 5.30 pm.  Almost there was 4 hours delay for giving treatment and the same was established before the lower forum.  Therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 

8.       We have heard the submissions of bothside counsels, perused the records and the order impugned. 

 

9.       On a perusal of the case sheet it is noted that there was an entry at 7.30 pm on 16.10.20 that the patient was normal.  Then the next noting was only at 9.30 pm observing that the patient developed sudden breathlessness.  The complainant would submit that they saw the patient at about 5.45 pm and subsequently she was disturbed as she had lost her consciousness step by step and further she had experienced continuous oozing of blood from her body.  But as seen from the case sheet, there were no entry with regard to oozing of blood.  Therefore, it is apparent that there was no care during that crucial hour i.e., between 7.30 to 9.30. Inspite of the reporting of the parents of the deceased about the health condition of the patient, they have left her unattended.  Though they have noticed that there was some set back regarding the condition of the patient when they visited at 7.30 pm, they simply ignored.  As was rightly held by the District Commission that “for those women who have shortness of breath or chest pain following a delivery, it would be essential to bring it to the attention of the doctor to save their life…In this case even it is noticed by the ward staffs, they are not intimated to the doctors immediately”.    Though the 1^st opposite party /doctor would submit that she was engaged in the operation theatre performing someother ceasarian surgery, the duty doctors and the ward staffs ought to have attended immediately, and that would have saved the patient.  Therefore, we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission, in awarding compensation for the lethargic attitude on the side of the hospital.  Thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 

10.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Salem in CC.No.71/2012 dt.11.5.2018.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                 R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/d/rsj/ Open court