Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 24th day of June, 2005
C.D.No.135/2003
Mrs. S. Prasanna Lakshmi,
alias S. Lakshmi Prasanna,
H.No. 9/69, Main Road,
R/o. Panyam,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri P.Sivasudarshan.
-Vs-
Dr T. Adinarayana Reddy,
Aravind Scanning Centre,
Behind State Bank,
Budhavar Pet,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri Md. Akram
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under Sec.12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay her Rs.4.00 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony, Rs.40,000/-for the incurred medical expenditure and costs alleging the deficiency of the medical services of the opposite party to her.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on medical advice the complainant approached the opposite party for scanning as to her pregnancy and obtained a scanning report accordingly on 17.9.2001 to the effect of the existence of a single fetus of 21 weeks 2 days old without any gross anomalies and in pursuance there of the complainant has taken treatment and in advanced two months she joined Pragathi Nursing Home of Nagar Kurnool on 23.11.2001 on complaint of serious stomachache and on examination existence twin fetus was observed and one among them as dead and was constrained to undergo surgical section operation for the removal dead fetus and the other fetus which survived for one day only. This state of circumstance was due to wrong diagnose by the opposite party in scanning as to the number fetus and there by complainant not able to take necessary care and caution for meeting the said contingency and in result the complainant besides to put to medical expense of Rs.20,000/- for surgical section operation for the said delivery, besides to mental agony also for loosing twins.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused his appearance and contested the case denying the liability and any deficiency of service on his part and thereby any of his liability to the claim of the complainant filing a written version accordingly and seeking dismissal of the complaint with costs for want of proper cause of action.
4. The written version of the opposite party firstly alleges no deficiency of service on his part as he has given the report to the best of his ability and proficiency, secondly disputes the identity of the complainant as said patient who has taken scan on 17.9.2001 as she was Mrs.Prasanna lakshmi,(W/O Srinivas Kumar resident of Panyam) and the patient who has taken scan on 23.11.2001 was MRS.Prasanna Lakshmi W/O Srinivasulu resident of Palem village. Thirdly the images of the scanning tests are objective and forming of opinion interpreting images are the subjective and thereby difference from expert to expert may be possible and so the said scanning report was provided to the referral doctor of the said patient for its correlation with the physical finding of the said referred doctor and it is for the said doctor who referred the said patient to discuss for any further clarification and as no such discussion or approach for any further clarification was being there for the said patient or from the said doctor who referred the said patient, implies the correctness of his scanning report, fourthly it allege that no cogent material from the complainant’s side as to how the treatment differed to any required treatment to the complainant on account of the said scanning report or that the treatment of complainant received in pursuance of said scanning report, fifthly the heart sounds of twins of 18 to 20 weeks old could be sensed by stethoscopic examination of the said pregnant women as per the authoritative text book of Williams on obstetrics, 28th Edition page No.869 and the referred doctor of the complainant, if could detect any defect in Ex.A.1 scanning report prepared by the opposite party the said doctor, who referred the complainant, would have found the existence of twin fetus by the said physical examination of the complainant with stethoscope and would have discussed with the opposite party as to any material variances, sixthly it submits that there is no much difference in the management of the pregnant women whether it is a case of twin pregnancy or single pregnancy during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy and hence the scanning report dt.17.9.2001 could not lead to any wrong treatment of the complainant irrespective of the correctness or incorrectness of the said report, seventhly the condition of Hydrops fetalis must have developed between 17.9.2001 and 23.11.2001 either because of immune causes or non immune causes intrinsic to the product of conception as per Williams text book of obstetrics page 993 and the condition of Hydrops fetalis commences from the time of conception itself due to effects of genetic and congential abnormality in the fetus itself which must have been not expressed in the first two trimesters by any physical change and exposed in third trimesters and so it is decease to fetus and thereby cannot be said as a result of any further treatment given by the doctor subsequent to the opposite party’s scanning report dt.17.9.2001, Eighthly submits that O.Ps reporting to the police on 5.1.2002 on complainant’s husband was on account of the blackmailing tactics of the later demanding Rs.50,000/-, ninthly the remnants of fetus that dies later after uterine margin or as a compressed flattened fetal structure known as fetus papyraceous in Intrauterine death (IUD) is possible as per the text book authority of Collins 3rd Edition page No.105 of Ultrasonagraphy is obstetrics and gynecology as prognosis of hydrops fetalis is very poor as per the ultrasonagraphy in obstetrics and gynecology of Callens 3rd Edition at page 347 and so the opposite party cannot be found fault for any deficiency or liability, tenthly the scanning report dt.23.11.2001 as shows the measurements of a single fetus and not of any second fetus or any particulars of femoral length (FL) confirming the twin pregnancy , the existence of alleged twin pregnancy is doubtful. Eleventhly as there being nothing to be found fault with scanning report dt.17.9.2001 or any cogent material connecting it to any disaster result, denies of any mental tension and agony to the complainant constraining the complainant to incur financial loss.
5. In substantiation of their contentions while the complainant’s side has taken reliance on documentary record marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and self sworn affidavit and the evidence of the P.W.1 Dr.S.K.Noorjahan of Pragathi Nursing Home, Nagar Kurnool, the opposite party’s side has taken reliance on a self sworn-affidavit averments and replies of the complainant to the interrogatories caused to the complainant.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service of the opposite party in the said scanning report dt.17.9.2001 and its nexus to the hardships met by the complainant at the time of the delivery and thereby any liability of the opposite party for the claim made in the complaint.
7. The Ex.A.1 is the scanning report dt.17.9.2001 issued by the opposite party on scanning of Gravid Uterus of MRS. Lakshmi Prasanna . It envisages a single live fetus of 21 weeks 2 days old without gross anamylis giving out the parameter features observed at single live fetus in the uterine cavity. The issual of the scanning report being not denied by the opposite party its contents remain worthy of consideration as admissions.
8. The Ex.A.2 is obstetric sonography dt.23.11.2001 of Prasanna Lakshmi resident of Palem being referred by Dr.Noorjahan who was examined as P.W.No.1. In the evidence she admits to have taken the said scanning of complainant and issued the said Ex.A.2 with the observations she has made during the said Sonography. But from the answers she gives in her cross-examination as to her not undergoing any training on the subject of sonography nor being taught on the said subject in her academic system while studying M.B.B.S, and the opposite party’s competency and proficiency with a better qualification in the said field of Radiology and Ultrasound scanning and the name of the patient tested by her has MRS Prasanna Lakshmi and not Lakshmi Prasanna and her thinking the mass like thing observed as dead fetus and omission of taking femoral length of Intra Uterine dead fetus, non taking of any reference to the second placenta of dead fetus and bi lobel plasanta which was swollen (Hydrops Fetallis) might be mistaken as second Intra Uterine dead fetus and as per the text book authority of Williams and Collins on Obstetrics and Ultrasonagraphy in Obstetrics and Gynecology at reference page NO.869, 993 and 437 respectively the existence of twins of 18 to 20 weeks old even could be diagnosed by heart beats of twin fetus by physical Stethoscopy examination and the features of Hdrops fetallis is a condition which could develop either because of immune causes or non-immune causes and most of them are intrinsic to the product of conception and the Ex.A.1 being standing in the name of MRS Lakshmi Prasanna (W/O Srinivas Kumar, resident of Panyam as per complaint cause title) and the Ex.A.2 being standing in the name of Prasanna Lakshmi (W/O Sreenivasulu resident of Palem as per discharge card Ex.A.4 ) and the identity of a person concerned in Ex.A.1 & A.2 being not established by confronting the opposite party and P.W.1, with complainant to say she was one and the same, the evidence of the P.W.1 and the report in Ex.A.2 is not remaining worthy of consideration as a bonafide one making out any case against the opposite party as to alleged deficiencies.
9. Further the complainant has not placed any cogent material as to the aspect of the special treatment the complainant should have received in case of twin fetus pregnancy and in what way it differs to the treatment the complainant would undergo in case of single fetus pregnancy. Hence in the absence of any cogent and acceptable material as to the extra care and treatment the complainant is prevented from taking, the decision of the Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Calcutta in MRS Krishna Mouni Thiwari Vs Dr. Mrs Gouri Bandhopadhya and others reported in I(2003)C.P.J 286 bears any relevancy for its consideration in this case.
10. Nor the complainant placed any cogent medical or technical evidence on record to believe the hardship the complainant faced in the said delivery and operation at P.W.1’s Hospital and loss of fetus as any direct nexus and accountability to the observations made in Ex.A.1 report issued by the opposite party. Nor there is any cogent material from the complainant’s side to say with certainty that the said circumstances of her fetus were not accountable to the supra stated technical possibilities coated from the text book authorities of Williams and Collin on the said aspects. Hence, there appears any material to believe any nexus between the observations of the Ex.A.1 report and the alleged suffering the complainant undergone at the time of the delivery in P.W.1’s Hospital and for the observations made in the Ex.A.2.
11. Further the complainant claims a medical expenditure of Rs.20,000/- at the time of the said delivery at the P.W.1’s Nursing Home and a post delivery expenditure of Rs.20,000/-.But the complainant places no such cogent material record in substantiation of the same. Hence, there appears any material to believe the bonafidies of the said claim and its entitleness to the complainant and so for want of merit and force in the said claim the said claim of the complainant is dismissed.
12. When the complainant could neither establish any nexus between the Ex.A.1 observations and the subsequent contingencies found at the Nursing Home of the P.W.1 and the suffererings the complainant met at the time of the delivery in the said Hospital of the P.W.1 nor the complainant could rebut the possibility for the said contingencies and circumstances taken in reference to the text book authorities of Williams and Collins on concerned subjects and events, it cannot be held that the observations of the opposite party made in Ex.A.1 are of deficient nature with lack of proficiency in diagnosing the matters properly. Therefore, the observations in Ex.A.1cannot be held as correct reasons for any mental agony of the complainant and the mental agony if any complainant suffered being having no nexus to the conduct of the opposite party towards the complainant in giving the observations in Ex.A.1, the claim of the complainant for a compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the opposite party for the alleged mental agony suffered by her not only remains baseless, but also without any merit and force and consequently either the complainant is remaining entitled for the said claim or the opposite party accruing any liability to make good of to the complainant the said claim for want of merit and force and bonafidies therein the said claim is dismissed.
13. The Ex.A.3 and A.4 Surgical Case Sheet and discharge card respectively pertaining to the complainant issued by Pragathi Nursing Home,Nagarkurnool of the P.W.1, being pertaining to the treatment the complainant was given during the said delivery they bear little relevancy in assessing any deficiency of alleged service of the opposite party, especially when those documents does take any reference to the existence of two plasentas of twins and the femoral length of the twins and any contradictory material to the referred text book authorities on obstetrics Gynecology and Sonography as to the certain contingences of Intra Uterine death fetus and hydrops fetalis and the P.W.1 in her evidence finds any features of fetus in the mass of the complainant and difference between placenta and moss could be detectable as per her evidence.
14. Hence, in conclusion of the above discussion as there is no cogent material establishing a cogent nexus between the Ex.A.1 findings made by the opposite party and the subsequent things found in Ex.A.2 and the difficulties faced by the complainant thereon in delivery and loss of fetus, any deficiency alleged against the opposite party could be felt in the cause of action and hence the claim of the complainant remains without any merit and force and consequently, neither there being any liability of the opposite party nor there being any entitleness to the complainant for the reliefs sought the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 24th day of June, 2005.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBMER
APPENDIS OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant:- For the opposite party:-
Ex A.1 1st scanning report of complainant -Nil-
Dt 17.9.2001 issued by Aravind Scan
Centre, Kurnool.
Ex A.2 IInd scanning report of compla-
inant dt 23.11.2001 issued by Pragathi
Nursing Home, Nagarkurnool.
Ex A.3 Surgical case sheet of compla-
inant issued by Pragathi Nursing Home,
Nagar Kurnool.
Ex A.4 Discharge card of complainant
Issued by Pragathi Nursing Home
Nagar Kurnool.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
