DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 270 of 22-06-2010 Decided on : 28-03-2011
Sukhbir Kaur, aged 26 years, daughter of Hakam Singh, R/o Mann Patti, V. Gobindpura W/o Bhupinder Singh S/o Ruldu Singh R/o V. Tharaj, P.S. Tapa, District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Chahal Hospital (Multi Speciality Hospital), Opp. D A V College, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through Dr. J S Chahal, M.B.B.S M.S (Surgery), Dr. Suneet Chahal, M.D (Gynae) and Dr. Sushil Garg M.D (Anaesthesia). Dr. J S Chahal, M.B.B.S. M.S. (Surgery) of Chahal Hospital (Multi Speciality Hospital), Opp. D.A.V. College, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. Dr. Suneet Chahal M.D. (Gynae) of Chahal Hospital (Multi Speciality Hospital), Opp. D.A.V. College, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. Dr. Sushil Garg, M.D. (Anaesthesia) of Chahal Hospital (Multi Speciality Hospital), Opp. D.A.V. College, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana, through its Director United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Head Office at 24 Whites Road, Chennai 600 014, having Branch Office at The Mall, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd., having its office at 54 Janapath, Connaught place, New Delhi through its Branch Manager
.... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Balwant Singh, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Abhey Singla and Sh. S.K. Singla, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 Opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 already exparte.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is married with Sh. Pinda Singh R/o Village Tharaj, District Barnala. The complainant gave birth to a male child on 30th March, 2009 who died after half an hour and that was normal delivery. The complainant again became pregnant and her delivery was due in May, 2010. The complainant was brought by her parents to opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 at about 11.00 a.m. on 15-05-2010 for consultation and check-up. Firstly, the opposite party No. 3 examined the complainant and after examination, she told that the delivery date was over and made the complainant, her parents and other relatives under fear by conveying that the delivery has to take place today itself and further conveyed that it will be a normal delivery in view of earlier normal delivery. Upon this, the complainant, her parents and other relatives came under fear and they agreed. The opposite party No. 3 injected drip to the complainant, which continued upto 7.00 p.m. but there was no labour pain to the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 stated that cesarean delivery should have to be done immediately otherwise there would be danger to the lives of the complainant as well as unborn child and accordingly, the complainant and her relatives agreed for cesarean delivery. Thereafter opposite party No. 3 called opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. The opposite party No. 2 introduced himself as Master of Surgery and opposite party No. 3 introduced herself as Specialist in disease relating to women including delivery and opposite party No. 4 introduced himself as Specialist in making the person so operated unconscious during operation time i.e. anesthetist. The opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 directed the parents and other relatives of the complainant to pay/deposit with them Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum charges for cesarean delivery as well as indoor charges. The parents of the complainant deposited the above said amount with opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and also purchased the medicines as asked by opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 took the complainant to the operation theatre. After cesarean, the complainant delivered a male baby and after stitching, the complainant was brought from the operation theatre. The complainant gained consciousness and then the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 came to her and conveyed that she will be discharged after 7/8 days. After the operation, the patient's urine output decreased and she felt breathlessness on exertion and it continued even later on rest. The colour of the eyes of the complainant became yellowish and the colour of urine became high. The blood pressure of the complainant increased and whole body of the complainant swelled. The condition of the complainant was going from bad to worse. The parents and relatives of the complainant requested opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to take care of the complainant or discharge her so that they may take her to higher Institute at Ludhiana or Chandigarh to save her life, but the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 refused to do so. After coming to know that the condition of the complainant became bad to worse, the panchayat of V. Govindpura and Nathana came to see the complainant in the hospital of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 on 17-05-2010. On seeing the precarious condition of the complainant, the panchayat asked the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 that they should discharge her so that the complainant may be shifted to some better Institute immediately. On this, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 became furious and opposite party No. 3 written a discharge slip which was incomplete and did not contain diagnosis and condition of complainant and handed over the same to the parents of the complainant. At the same time, opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 openly stated that the complainant would not reach D.M.C.& Hospital, Ludhiana and will die in the way. The complainant was immediately taken to opposite party No. 5 and was admitted in Emergency vide C.R. No. 58972, Admission No. 19505 dated 17-05-2010 and clinical tests including Echocardiography, ultrasound, ultrasound abdomen, X-ray, E.C.G. etc.,were conducted. The doctors of opposite party No. 5 firstly removed the urine accumulated in the bladder and other parts of the body and also the poisonous matters by inserting pipes in the stomach and also through nose. The doctors of opposite party No. 5 after all clinical tests and from ultrasound etc., opined that opposite party No. 2 to 4 while stitching the uterus also stitched the urine pipe and it was entirely due to negligent act on the part of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 which resulted in decreasing the urine output and accumulation of urine in the body. The doctors of opposite party No. 5 then conducted operation of the complainant and removed the stitches from the urine pipe. The complainant was even put on ventilators. The complainant remained in MU-I of D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana upto 29-05-2010. The opposite party No. 5 charged Rs. 59,863/- as indoor charges, clinical test charges and operation charges against receipt. The complainant also spent Rs. 29,121/- on medicines, clinical test and also sarai charges. The complainant alleged that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 were negligent while conducting cesarean delivery of the complainant and even after complication, they did not listen and were not discharging the complainant despite requests and were adamant to keep the complainant in their hospital till she die. The complainant was discharged after the visit of panchayat and even thereafter the act and conduct of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 was rude and torturing. The complainant alleged that due to adamant attitude and behaviour of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4, the complainant suffered mental tension and agony and also loss of physical health. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 in their joint written reply submitted that complainant was brought to the opposite parties and the treatment in question was given to the patient, in good faith after explaining the diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, benefits, loses and known complications etc., The complainant came with complaint of post dates pregnancy with labour pains. According to complainant her LMP was 11-07-2009 and expected date of delivery was 18-04-2010. On 15-05-2010, she was post date pregnancy, her BP was 150/90 mm of Hg with Pedal Odema. The complainant was given Trial of labour with drugs starting from 1.00 p.m. on 15-05-2010. At about 7.45 p.m., the foetus developed irregularity in heart-beat and meconium stained liquor started coming out. Immediately opposite party No. 3 brought the fact to the notice of relatives of the complainant. They were also duly informed about the condition of mother and foetus. Thereafter with the consent of relatives of the complainant, LSCS was planned, as immediate normal delivery was not possible because cervix was not sufficiently dilated yet and patient's BP was also high. The LSCS was done with post date pregnancy with CPD (Cephalo-pelvic disproportion) with non-progress of labour with foetal distress. An alive male baby of 3.6 Kg was born through meconium. At the time of LSCS, Anesthetist Dr. Sushil Garg, and Child Specialist Dr. Robin Maheshwary were called and they were present at the time of LSCS. The surgery was uneventful. The complainant was shifted to Gyane Ward of hospital, she was comfortable and her condition was stable. It has been denied that opposite party No. 3 ever assured the complainant and her relatives that there would be normal delivery. The earlier home delivery of complainant could not be claimed to be a normal delivery because the child died within about half an hour of the delivery. The opposite party No. 3 had duly explained all facts and also duly informed relatives of complainant about her condition and had obtained consent of relatives of the complainant for LSCS. In such like circumstances, no Gynecologist could assure normal delivery especially when first child had died only within half an hour of birth. LSCS was conducted by the opposite parties after obtaining due consent of the relatives of the complainant. After 12 hours, the patient/complainant developed breathlessness and palpitation, for which she was investigated and treated accordingly. The complainant was later shifted to Intensive Care Ward for further management. All vital parameters of complainant were stable and she was treated with I/V fluid and antibiotics. On 17-05-2010 further blood tests were done and ultra-sonography was also done. Blood test result showed increased TLC and raised serum billirubin and decreased renal functions, which were duly entered in the record. Ultrasound was normal and no fluid collection in abdominal cavity was seen. Due to non-improvement of condition of complainant, she was discharged and referred to D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana. A discharge card was issued to the complainant wherein all the details were mentioned. Trained worker from Chahal Hospital i.e. opposite party No. 1 had accompanied complainant to DMC, Ludhiana. The opposite parties have denied that complainant had shifted to D.M.C. Ludhiana at her own. It has been pleaded that complainant had developed post-operative complications i.e. ARDS (Acute respiratory distress syndrome) and with decreased renal functions, for which she was required investigation, management and treatment from higher institution and for that she was referred to DMC, Ludhiana, by opposite party No. 3. It has been specifically denied that doctors of opposite party No. 5 after tests and after going through ultrasound told that uterus was also stitched with Urine Pipe due to negligent act on the part of opposite party No. 2 to 4 and that the doctors of opposite party No. 5 ever conducted any operation of complainant or removed any stitches from Urine Pipe. In fact no such operation was ever conducted by doctors of DMC, Ludhiana i.e. opposite party No. 5 and the complainant was with Medical Unit No. 1 which means T/T with medicines only. As per Discharge Card of DMC, Ludhiana, the complainant was treated conservatively which means with drugs and support measures and no surgery was conducted at DMC, Ludhiana. It has been pleaded that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of doctors of Chahal Hospital. The opposite parties treated complainant to the best of their ability, knowledge and experience. Opposite party No. 2 is M.B.B.S., M.S. (Gen. Surgery) who has got sufficient experience in surgery. Similarly, opposite party No. 3 Dr. Suneet Pal is M.B.B.S. (Mid. & Gynae) and has got sufficient experience in Gynae. The treatment given by opposite parties to complainant was according to medical norms. Discharge Summary of DMC, Ludhiana , itself shows complication of ARDS in diagnosis. The ARDS can occur in obstetrical cases. So, no negligence of any kind can be attributed to the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 4 has filed separate written reply and pleaded that opposite party No. 4 is not running Multi Speciality Hospital with opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 rather opposite party No. 4 is M.D. (Anesthesaia) and is called by opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 as and when required. The opposite party No. 4 had given Anesthesia to complainant at the time of LSCS and there was no complaint with regard to Anesthesaia. Similarly, Child Specialist Dr. Robind Maheshwary was also called by opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 3 & 4 both remained present at the time of LSCS. Surgery was uneventful and complainant was shifted to Gyane Ward of Hospital. The opposite party No. 7 in its separate written reply has pleaded that opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 were insured, during the period the patient Sukhbir Kaur was treated i.e. on 15-05-2010, with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 54 Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi, vide Professional Indemnity Policy Nos 040100/46/09/35/00002100 and 040100/46/09/36/00002101 respectively both effective from 11-08-2009 to 10-08-2010. None appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that on 30th March, 2009, the complainant gave birth to a male child who died after about half an hour. That was normal delivery. The complainant again became pregnant in August, 2009 and the delivery was due in May, 2010. The complainant was brought to opposite party No. 4 at about 11.00 a.m. on 15-05-2010 for consultation and check-up. The opposite party No. 3 after examining the complainant, told that delivery date is over and made the complainant, her parents and other relatives under fear by conveying that the delivery has to take place today and further conveyed that it will be normal delivery in view of earlier normal delivery. Thereafter opposite party No. 3 injected drip to the complainant which continued upto 7.00 p.m. but there was no labour pain. So, opposite party no. 3 stated that cesarean delivery should have to be done immediately otherwise there is danger to the lives of the complainant as well as unborn child and accordingly all of them agreed for cesarean delivery of the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 called opposite party Nos. 2 and 4. The opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 directed the parents and other relatives of the complainant to pay/deposit with them Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum charges for cesarean delivery as well as indoor charges and that the parents of the complainant would have to bear the expenses of cesarean material and for medicines. The parents of the complainant deposited the above amount with the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and also purchased the medicines as asked by the opposite party Nos . 2 to 4 to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- and handed over to them. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 took the complainant to the operation theatre. After cesarean, the complainant delivered a male baby and after stitching, the complainant was brought from the operation theatre. After the complainant was operated upon, urine output decreased and the complainant felt breathlessness on exertion and it continued even later on on rest. The colour of the eyes of the complainant became yellowish and colour of urine became high. The blood pressure of the complainant increased and her whole body swelled. The condition of the complainant was going from bad to worse. The parents, husband and other relatives of the complainant requested the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 that in case they are unable to take care of the complainant, they should discharge her so that they may take her to higher Institute at Ludhiana or Chandigarh to save her life, but opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 refused to do so. The Panchayat of Village Nathana and many other came to see the complainant in the hospital of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 on 17-05-2010 and on seeing her precarious conditions, they asked opposite party No. 2 to 4 to discharge the complainant. On this opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 became furious and opposite party No.3 written a discharge slip which was even incomplete and does not contain diagnosis and condition of the complainant at the time of discharge. While discharging the complainant, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 openly stated to the complainant, her parents, her husband , her relatives and the Panchayat persons that the complainant would not reach D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana and will die in the way. The complainant was immediately taken to opposite party No. 5 and was admitted in Emergency vide C.R. No. 58972, Admission No. 19505 dated 17-05-2010 and clinical tests including Echocardiography, ultrasound, ultrasound abdomen, X-ray, E.C.G. etc.,were conducted. The doctors of opposite party No. 5 firstly removed the urine accumulated in the bladder and other parts of the body and also the poisonous matters by inserting pipes in the stomach and also through nose. The doctors of opposite party No. 5 after all clinical tests and from ultrasound etc., opined that opposite party No. 2 to 4 while stitching the uterus also stitched the urine pipe and it was entirely due to negligent act on the part of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 which resulted in decreasing the urine output and accumulation of urine in the body. The doctors of opposite party No. 5 then conducted operation of the complainant and removed the stitches from the urine pipe. The complainant was even put on ventilators. The complainant remained in MU-I of D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana upto 29-05-2010. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 were negligent while conducting caesarean delivery of the complainant and after complication, they did not listen and were not discharging the complainant despite requests being made by the relatives of the complainant. The complainant was discharged after the visit of Panchayat and even thereafter the act and conduct of opposite party no. 2 to 4 was rude and torturing. The learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the opposite parties treated complainant to the best of their ability, knowledge and experience. Opposite party No. 2 is M.B.B.S., M.S. (Gen. Surgery) who has got sufficient experience in surgery. Similarly, opposite party No. 3 Dr. Suneet Pal is M.B.B.S. (Mid. & Gynae) and has got sufficient experience in Gynae. The treatment given by opposite parties to complainant was according to medical norms. In fact, the complainant came with complaint of post dates pregnancy with labour pains. According to complainant her LMP was 11-07-2009 and expected date of delivery was 18-04-2010. On 15-05-2010, she was post date pregnancy, her BP was 150/90 mm of Hg with Pedal Odema. The complainant was given Trial of labour with drugs starting from 1.00 p.m. on 15-05-2010. At about 7.45 p.m., the foetus developed irregularity in heart-beat and meconium stained liquor started coming out. Immediately opposite party No. 3 brought the fact to the notice of relatives of the complainant. They were also duly informed about the condition of mother and foetus. Thereafter with the consent of relatives of the complainant, LSCS was planned, as immediate normal delivery was not possible because cervix was not sufficiently dilated yet and patient's BP was also high. The LSCS was done with post date pregnancy with CPD (Cephalo-pelvic disproportion) with non-progress of labour with foetal distress. An alive male baby of 3.6 Kg was born through meconium. At the time of LSCS, Anesthetist Dr. Sushil Garg, and Child Specialist Dr. Robin Maheshwary were called and they were present at the time of LSCS. The surgery was uneventful. The complainant was shifted to Gyane Ward of hospital, she was comfortable and her condition was stable. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 to 3 further submitted that opposite party No. 3 never assured the complainant and her relatives that there would be normal delivery. The earlier home delivery of complainant could not be claimed to be a normal delivery because the child died within about half an hour of the delivery. The opposite party No. 3 had duly explained all facts and also duly informed relatives of complainant about her condition and had obtained consent of relatives of the complainant for LSCS. In such like circumstances, no Gynecologist could assure normal delivery especially when first child had died only within half an hour of birth. LSCS was conducted by the opposite parties after obtaining due consent of the relatives of the complainant. After 12 hours, the patient/complainant developed breathlessness and palpitation, for which she was investigated and treated accordingly. The complainant was later shifted to Intensive Care Ward for further management. All vital parameters of complainant were stable and she was treated with I/V fluid and antibiotics. On 17-05-2010 further blood tests were done and ultra-sonography was also done. Blood test result showed increased TLC and raised serum billirubin and decreased renal functions, which were duly entered in the record. Ultrasound was normal and no fluid collection in abdominal cavity was seen. Due to non-improvement of condition of complainant, she was discharged and referred to D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana. A discharge card was issued to the complainant wherein all the details were mentioned. Trained worker from Chahal Hospital i.e. opposite party No. 1 had accompanied complainant to DMC, Ludhiana. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 to 3 further submitted that complainant had developed post-operative complications i.e. ARDS (Acute respiratory distress syndrome) and with decreased renal functions, for which she was required investigation, management and treatment from higher institution and for that she was referred to DMC, Ludhiana, by opposite party No. 3. It has been specifically denied that doctors of opposite party No. 5 after tests and after going through ultrasound told that uterus was also stitched with Urine Pipe due to negligent act on the part of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and that the doctors of opposite party No. 5 ever conducted any operation of complainant or removed any stitches from Urine Pipe. In fact no such operation was ever conducted by doctors of DMC, Ludhiana i.e. opposite party No. 5 and the complainant was with Medical Unit No. 1 which means T/T with medicines only. As per Discharge Card of DMC, Ludhiana, the complainant was treated conservatively which means with drugs and support measures and no surgery was conducted at DMC, Ludhiana. It has been pleaded that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of doctors of Chahal Hospital. The opposite parties treated complainant to the best of their ability, knowledge and experience. Opposite party No. 2 is M.B.B.S., M.S. (Gen. Surgery) who has got sufficient experience in surgery. Similarly, opposite party No. 3 Dr. Suneet Pal is M.B.B.S. (Mid. & Gynae) and has got sufficient experience in Gynae. The treatment given by opposite parties to complainant was according to medical norms. Discharge Summary of DMC, Ludhiana , itself shows complication of ARDS in diagnosis. The ARDS can occur in obstetrical cases. So, no negligence of any kind can be attributed to the opposite parties. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant has failed to prove any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties by producing any expert evidence. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 is M.D. (Anesthesaia) and he was called by opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 as and when required. The opposite party No. 4 had given Anesthesia to complainant at the time of LSCS and there was no complaint with regard to Anesthesaia. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 7 submitted that opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 were insured, during the period the patient Sukhbir Kaur was treated i.e. on 15-05-2010, with United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,vide insurance policies effective from 11-08-2009 to 10-08-2010. It is the admitted fact that complainant was brought to opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 for delivery and her earlier delivery was normal but her male child died after about half an hour after delivery. The allegation of the complainant is that (i) at the time of admission, the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that her delivery would be normal. The opposite party No. 2 conducted cesarean delivery of the complainant with malafide intention on the pretext that in case she would opt for normal delivery, there would be danger to the lives of both the complainant as well as unborn child and the complainant and her parents under forced circumstances, agreed for cesarean delivery of the complainant, (ii) the cesarean delivery of the complainant was performed in a negligent manner by opposite party No. 2 & 3 due to which condition of the complainant deteriorated (iii) after post operative complication, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 were not discharging the complainant and she was discharged on asking of the panchyat. Thereafter complainant was taken to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana, where another operation was performed upon her as opposite party no. 2 stitched her urine pipe while conducting cesarean operation. A perusal of record reveals that opposite party Nos. 2 is M.B.B.S. M.S. (Gen. Surgery) and opposite party No. 3 is M.B.B.S. M.D. (Mid. & Gynae). The Operation Record Ex. R-2 page 18 is reproduced as under :- “Under all aseptic precautions and ST. Pt. Cathetrised. Parts cleaned and draped. Abdomen opened by transverse incision and in layer. Ut. Opened by transverse incision. An alive male baby extracted as Vx. at 8.10 p.m. on 15-05-2010. Baby handed over to Pead. Placenta with memb. delivered completely. Ut. Stitched in layer. Haemostasis achieved. Abdomen closed in layer. NT. ASD done. Baby Wt 3.6 Kg.” Thereafter the complainant was admitted in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana, on 17-05-2010 where the history of the patient recorded vide Ex. R-9 which reads as under :- “HISTORY AND EXAMINATION : Patient is P2 L1 Post LSCS (15/5/2010 x 11 days back) C/C decreased urine output x 11 days Breathlessness x 11 days Palpitation x 11 days HODI- HDBT – 1 days when patient was operated LSCS (15/5/2010) at a Local nursing home. Post op. Day 1 pt. Started having decreased urine output History of breathlessness on exertion and later swear on. No H/o chest pain/palpitation H/o yellow colour eyes with high coloured urine x 11 days back No H/o bleeding at any site No H/o nausea/vomitting No H/o purulent discharge from wound suture site No H/o of high grade fever with rigors and chills No H/o altered sensorium PAST No H/o sensitivity complaint in past No H/o DM/HT/BA/TB/any chronic illness HB-10, SGOT-69, SGPT -2012, TLC – 30000, Pt 2,50,000, Serum Cretanine-6, Serum Bili 5.0 Pt. Has hypotension and was referred to DMC Ludhiana under IV fluids, Isotrope. O/E Pt. is conscious, cooperative, well oriented to time........ Pallor +, Icteurs + , Cynosis -, Clubbing -, Oedma - B.P. 110/70 PR-84/pm. CVS S1, S2 (N) No S3/murmur CNS – HMF + No Focal Neurological disorder No. Sensory disorder P/A Soft, Non-tender Liver Spleen non-palpable Chest B/L normal Vesicular breathing no added sound.” HOSPITAL COURSES Pt. Was admitted with above complaints....She was managed conservative treatment. IV. Fluids, antibiotics, diuretice, and other supporting measure. Pt. Symptomatically improved. Gyane consultation taken. Treatment given and pt. is being discharged. Treatment Advised : Tab, Ceftum 250 ml Bdx7 days Cap. Rabicip – D 1 OD Tab. Supradin 1 OD Tab Dyter 10 Ml. ½ OD Tab Zanocin 200 ml. BD x 5 days” A perusal of above said record reveals that only the conservative treatment was given to the complainant at DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. No operation/surgery was conducted at DMC. Moreover, post operative complications cannot be termed as medical negligence. As discussed in para No. 13 above, the main contention of complainant is that at the time of admission, the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that her delivery would be normal. The complainant has not produced any document to prove this allegation. Hence, no such assurance was given by the opposite party No. 2. Moreover, the doctor has taken extra care to protect the child as well as mother as the previous child had died within half an hour of the delivery and in such a case, the previous delivery cannot be termed as normal one. The next contention of the complainant is that the cesarean delivery of the complainant was performed in a negligent manner by opposite party No. 2 & 3 due to which condition of the complainant deteriorated. This contention of the complainant also stands falsified by the operation notes of opposite party No. 1 and history recorded at DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. The complainant was successfully operated. The complainant has failed to prove by leading any cogent and convincing evidence that cesarean delivery of the complainant was performed in a negligent manner. As already discussed, the post operative complication cannot be termed into medical negligence. The last contention of the complainant is that after post operative complication, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 were not discharging the complainant and she was discharged on asking of the panchyat. Thereafter complainant was taken to DMC & Hospital where another operation was performed upon her as opposite party No. 2 stitched her urine pipe while conducting cesarean operation. A perusal of Indoor File of opposite party No. 1 reveals that it has been mentioned against the column “Condition of Discharge – referred to DMC & Hospital for further management”. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that aforementioned operation notes and history of the complainant clearly reveals that opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 referred the complainant/patient to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana of their own. Further the above said record of DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana also reveals that complainant was managed with conservative treatment and no operation was performed upon her as alleged in the complaint. Moreover, the complainant was admitted in Medical Unit-1 of DMC, Ludhiana, which has nothing to do with surgery. The complainant has utterly failed to prove that her urine pipe was stitched by opposite party No. 2 while conducting cesarean operation. For this reference may be made to the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2005(3) CPR 70 (SC) wherein it has been observed that a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invaribly be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. In view of what has been discussed above, no medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is proved. Complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.
Pronounced 28-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
