DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 307 of 21.12.2015

                                      Decided on:      1.11.2019

Kiran Devi W/o Sh.Harmail Singh R/o Village Alipur, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Dr.Davinderjeet Kaur, M.D. Gynecologist, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nabha, District Patiala.
2. Senior Medical officer, Civil Hospital, Nabha, District Patiala.
3. Director Punjab Health Services Corporation, Chandigarh.
4. State of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.
5. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Moolchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110024, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Sai Market, Patiala, 147001.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa,   President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur,      Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal,           Member   

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.S.S.Virk,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Atul Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      OPs No.2,3&4 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.B.S.Sodhi,Advocate, counsel for OP No.5.

 ORDER

                                     M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Kiran Devi (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Dr.Davinderjeet Kaur and ors. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that OP No.1. Dr.Davinderjeet Kaur, MD Gynecologist is medical officer and employed under Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nabha (OP No.2). The complainant conceived pregnancy. She was brought to Civil Hospital, Nabha, where OP No.1 admitted her on 22.8.2014 for treatment. She negligently treated the complainant on 23.8.2014 through a caesarean operation, wherein a male child was born.
3. It is alleged that OP No.1has not used proper care and caution. She had hurriedly operated the complainant and committed negligent and harmful acts on the body of the complainant, which are as below

1. She made a cut on the urine bag of the complainant with scissor, which did not come in the process of operation.
2. She stitched the uterus of the complainant with her skin

4. It is further pleaded that the complainant remained admitted in the hospital from 22.8.2014 to 1.9.2014. During this period, complainant continuously complained about the acute pain in the lower part of her abdomen, but OP No.1 did not bother about that and instructed the complainant to take medicines and rest. Complainant took medicines and rest as per advise of OP No.1 but there was no improvement. She had been suffering from pains and puss in her stitches after caesarean operation. She again complained about this at her visit to OP No.1 on 5.9.2014 but OP No.1 again prescribed some medicines and did not examine the internal wounds of complainant through tests. The medicines failed to improve her health for about next two months. She has to consult another specialist Dr.Renu Sharda, Gynecologist at Nabha on 14.11.2014. She dressed the wounds of the complainant for some days and prescribed medicines. The complainant took medicines regularly but all in vain. Thereafter, complainant preferred to consult Surgical Hospital, Patiala where Dr.Janak Raj Gupta after examining the wounds and health of the complainant advised her to take treatment from any big hospital as the wounds were beyond his control. Hence the complainant went to Dr.Nitin, a renowned Gynecologist of Patiala on 8.12.2014 and had to remain admitted at Nitin Nursing Home from 8.12.2014 to 12.12.2014 for treatment. During this period, complainant had to undergo the medical operation as the serious wound emerged in her uterus and the fluid was gathered therein and infection was spreading in her body. This all happened due to handling of complainant by OP No.1 with carelessness and negligent manner at the time of her caesarean.
5. It is also alleged that the required tests (including ultrasound) were not suggested/prescribed by OP No.1 after delivery and even after complaint of acute pain in her abdomen. If proper operation was done with full care and timely treatment was given by OP No.1 to the complainant, she was not having to suffer from harassment and loss of her health.
6. It is also pleaded that from the reports dated 8.12.2014, prescribed by Dr.Nitin, the ultrasound report revealed as under

An irregular long handle ‘Loop’ shaped sinus is seen from skin to utero-cervical junction at level of lower segment scar. The sinus tract is extended through endometrial canal and encasing full thickness of anterior myometrial segment measuring 20mm x 18mm x 14mm in size.

This segment of myometrium at level of scar is T2 hypointense and T1 isointense to rest of normal myometruim.

A small-non encapsulated fluid collection is seen above dome of urinary bladder in utero-vesical pouch.

There are dense adhesious around the utero-cervical axis’

The urinary bladder outline at dome is irregular and focal signal abnormality is seen in urinary bladder superior wall. T1 W images obtained after contrast injection into skin sinus opening shows contrast within the bladder lumen suggestive of possible leak into bladder lumen.

It is pleaded that from this test, it is crystal clear that a serious wound has been emerged in the uterus of the complainant and fluid was gathered therein and infection was spreading due to wounds and a cut in urine bag. The complainant has to incur huge expenditure for her treatment and her health was adversely affected. She and her family were suffered from great mental agony, tension and harassment.

7. On this back of the facts, the complainant has alleged negligence on the part of OP No.1 while treating her. The OPs No.2 to 4 are impleaded being responsible and liable to compensate the complainant as OP No.1 is employed under them.
8. It is further pleaded that the complainant through her counsel has also issued legal notice to the OPs on 13.5.2015 detailing about negligence in treatment and requested to pay compensation within 60 days but the OPs instead of paying the compensation posted false replies to the notice. Hence this complaint. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.19lacks , detailed as under

1. Damages for medical negligence        Rs.12,00,000/-
2. Damages for pain and sufferings      Rs.5,00,000/-
3. Expenditure on treatment                           Rs.1,00,000/-
4. Litigation charges                              Rs.33,000/-
5. Transportation and other miscellaneous:
6.  

9. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OPs No.3&4 and they were proceeded against exparte. Previously OP No.2 also appeared and filed reply. OPs No.1&5 appeared and contested the case by filing written reply.
10.  In reply, the OP No.1 raised preliminary objections that the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to the employees. The patient had not paid anything to the OP. Hence she is not a consumer of OP No.1. Complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious and scurrilous which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has been filed without any justified reason/cause and  just to harass, defame and extort illegal sum of money from OP No.1. That no specific, scientific and justified allegations in regard to negligence or deficiency in providing services have been made by the complainant. The complainant has filed this complaint with false allegations of negligence by claiming exorbitant amounts without any basis, just to waste the valuable time, harass and defame OP No.1; that no cause of action has arisen against OP No.1.There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1; that the complaint is false, fabricated, wrong and baseless. It is bad for non-joinder of necessary party  i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., as OP No.1 is having professional indemnity policy No.041200/46/13/35/00007570; that OP No.1 is well qualified, reputed and respected doctor.
11. Thereafter the OP No.1 has brought the factual matrix and medical facts as under

The complainant came for delivery for which LSCS was done. A lower Uterine) segment caesarean section (LSCS) is the most commonly used types of caesarean section. It involves a transverse cut just above the edge of the bladder and results in less blood loss and is easier to repair than other types of caesarean sections. It may be transverse (the usual) or vertical in the following conditions:

1. Presence of lateral varicosities
2. Construction ring to cut through it
3. Deeply engaged head

The location of an LSCS is beneficial for the following reasons

1. The peritoneum is more loosely attached to the uterus
2. Contraction is less than in the upper part of the uterus
3. Healing is more efficient
4. Sutures are intact (less problem with suture loosening)

12. It is further explained that most bleeding takes place from the angles of the incision and forceps can be applied to control it. Green Armytage forceps are specifically designed for this purpose. The patient was discharged in a stable condition on 1.9.2014. After that the patient lost to follow up and never came back. There was no complaint of pain in the abdomen at the time of discharge. The OP No.1 has done everything with utmost due care and caution in treating the patient.

Thereafter OP No.1 replied parawise reply to the contents of the complaint, wherein the OP No.1 has controverted all the material averments of the complainant and has reiterated the stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end OP No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint.

13. OP No.2 in reply also raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is false to the knowledge of the OP as the OP has not given any type of treatment to the complainant, so the OP is entitled for special costs of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint.
14. On merits also it is pleaded that as per official record the complainant was admitted at Civil Hospital, Nabha on 22.8.2014 and was discharged in a satisfactory condition on 1.9.2014. It is denied that any negligence act was committed by OP No.1. If any negligence has been committed  by OP No.1, the complainant should have filed the complaint before OP No.1 or higher authority against OP No.1. Hence the complaint is false  and afterthought .Thereafter, OP No.2 also  denied all the material averments of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

It is relevant to mention that thereafter during evidence none appeared on behalf of OP No.2.As such OP No.2 was also proceeded against exparte.

15.  In  its reply also OP No.5 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against Doctor i.e. OP No.1; that there is no deficiency in service. As such complaint is liable to dismissed.
16. On merits also, OP No.5 has supported the version of OP No.1 and denied all the averments. In the end OP No.5 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
17. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
18. In support of her case, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit, Ex.CA, discharge slip, Ex.C1, birth certificate of the child, Ex.C2, prescription slip of Dr.Renu Sharda, Ex.C3, prescription slip of Dr.Janak Raj Arora, Ex.C4, reports, Exs.C5 and C6, discharge card of Nitin Hospital,Ex.C7, M.R.I. report, Ex.C8, bills Exs.C9,C10,C11, prescription slip of Dr.Neena Gupta, Ex.C12, bill, Exs.C13,C14, legal notice, Ex.C15, postal receipts, Exs.C16 to C19, reply to legal notice, Ex.C20,C21, admission record of complainant, Ex.C22.
19. OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.OPB of Davinderjit Kaur, copies of certificates, Exs.OP2, OP3.
20. OP No.5 tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Smt.Kanta, Ex. OP1, copy of insurance policy.

Complainant and OP No.1 also submitted written arguments.

21. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully.
22. The ld. counsel for the complainant after reiterating his stand as taken in the complaint has further submitted that it is admitted that the complainant was admitted at Civil Hospital, Nabha, where she was treated by OP No.1.This fact is also admitted by OP No.1.The averment of the complainant is that the OP No.1 has not taken proper care and caution and has made cut on the urinary bag of the complainant with scissor and stitched the uterus with the skin of the complainant.
23. The OP has pleaded that the complainant was discharged under satisfactory condition but the complainant repeatedly complained about her condition. No ultrasound was got conducted by OP No.1.Complainant has brought on record report of MRI,Ex.C8, which proves that  fluid was seen in Utero  vesicle pouch and above dome of bladder noticed with dense adhesion around uterus. There was contrast filling in urinary bladder lumen. This report sufficiently proves that there was cut in urinary bag and the stitches of the uterus were with the skin.

When the OP failed to properly treat the complainant she got the treatment firstly from Renu Sharda Nursing Home from 14.11.2014 . Ex.C3 proves this fact. Thereafter the complainant took treatment from Janak Surgi Care. Ex.C4 proves this fact. It was also mentioned by Dr.Janak Raj that post C.S.Sinus in primary wound lower end and exploration sinus performed under LA.Track was lined by granulation tissue and further exploration revealed that it is going inferiorlyand in retro pubic region and ultimately it was going towards pelvis. The further procedure was stopped due to complication.

24. Keeping in view the diagnosis of Dr.Janak Surgicare, the complainant got admitted at Nitiin Hospital from 8.12.2014 to 12.12.2014,where she was operated upon. It proves that the complainant had undergone second operation, only due to negligence in treatment by OP No.1The OP No.1 also failed to cope with the complications arisen after operation i.e. LSCS. The complainant suffered considerably for a long time i.e. from 1.9.2014 to 12.12.2014 and took treatment from different doctors only due to negligence in treatment by OP No.1.The complainant suffered from physical harassment and monetary loss in addition to expenses on treatment. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed for.
25. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the complaint is abuse of process of law. There is no specific allegation of any negligence. The complainant herself has relied upon discharge slip, Ex.C1 which proves that the complainant was discharged in satisfactory condition. In case there was any complication, the complainant was certainly to approach the OP before going to other doctors but there is no evidence on record to prove that the complainant ever approached the OP.

The complainant has pleaded that she took treatment from Renu Sharda Nursing Home.Ex.C3 proves that it was from 14.11.2014 onwards i.e. more than two months after discharge from the hospital. In case there was any cut on the urinary bag, it was not expected that the complainant will remain mum for such a long period and will not take any treatment.  The complainant has further produced on record, Ex.C4. It is dated 4.12.2014.There is also nothing to show that there was any cut in the urinary bag of the complainant.

Of course the complainant has produced on record discharge record of Nitin Hospital but it proves that the operation was for laparotomy and not for curing/repairing any cut on the urinary bag. Much reliance of the complainant is upon MRI Report,Ex.C8. It is dated 8.12.2014 i.e. more than three months after discharge. There is nothing to show that the complications mentioned in the MRI were only on account of surgery performed by the OP.

It is further mentioned that possible leak/breech of dome of bladder to be ruled out on retrograde CT cystogram. From this opinion it is clear that there was nothing to suggest any leak/breech of urinary bladder. It was only to be ascertained on CT cystogram . There is no report of any laboratoryregarding CT cystogram. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of the OP. Complaint is abuse of the process of law and it is liable to be dismissed.

26. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.
27. Admittedly the complainant was brought to Civil hospital at Nabha where she was treated by OP No.1.The complainant was performed caesarean and discharged on 1.9.2014.
28. The version of the OP is that the complainant was discharged in satisfactory condition. Complainant has relied upon slip Ex.C1. There is nothing to show any complication at the time of discharge of the complainant. Of course complainant has alleged that she visited OP No.1 on 5.9.2014 but there is no documentary evidence to prove this fact.
29. From the contents of the complainant it emerges that the main averment of the complainant is that OP No.1 made a cut on the urinary bag and stitched the uterus with her skin. In order to prove her case the mere reliance of the complainant is on MRI report dated 8.12.2014,Ex.C8.The opinion mentioned is as under

1.  Complex sinus tract involving anterior wall of utero certical junction at level of scar tissue and is communicating with endometrial cana... completely encasing the area of myometrial scar.
2. Minimal fluid is seen in utero-vesical pouch and above dome of bladder with dense adhesions around uterus
3. Contrast filling in urinary bladder lumen….possible leak/breech of dome of bladder to be ruled our on retrograde CT cystogram

30. Therefore, the aforesaid opinion reveal that in order to rule out possible leak/breech of dome of bladder C.T.Cystogram was recommended but there is nothing to show that the complainant got C.T.Cystogram to rule out the possibility of leak/breech of the bladder.
31. The complainant has also tried to prove her case on the basis of treatment taken from different doctors .At the cost of repetition, the complainant was discharged by OP No.1 on 1.9.2014.The next prescription is Ex.C3 of Renu Sharda Nursing Home. It is dated 14.11.2014. There is no document to show that the complainant consulted any doctor or took treatment between 1.9.2014 date of discharge from OP No.1 and 14.11.2014 treatment from Renu Sharda Nursing Home. In this prescription also it is no where mentioned that there is any cut in urinary bladder.

Ex.C4 is the other prescription. It is dated 4.12.2014. As per this document also Post C.S.sinus in primary wound lower end.There is also nothing to show that there was any cut in the urinary bladder as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has also pleaded that she got operation conducted from Nitin Hospital. Discharge record Ex.C7 proves that she was admitted with Nitin Hospital on 8.12.2014 and discharged on 12.12.2014.The operation was for laparotomy. There is nothing to show that any treatment/operation was for repair of the cut in urinary bladder. This treatment is after more than three months from the date of discharge of the complainant. The complainant was to prove that she continuously took treatment after 1.9.2014 and that this treatment was only due to complication caused by OP No.1. Therefore, there is no nexus between the treatment taken from OP No.1 and the treatment taken from other doctors after discharge from OP No.1.

32. The net conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of OP No.1 and the complaint is dismissed accordingly. Parties are to bear their own costs.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:1.11.2019

                                 B.S.Dhaliwal      Inderjeet Kaur       M. P. Singh Pahwa

                                   Member                         Member                 President