BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 24/2012.
THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Salma Begum W/o. Sayed Saleem, aged about
20 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 1-1-9/26, Hasmiya Compound, Station Road, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- Dr. Ishrath Siddiqui, Obst. & Gynocologist MBBS DGO
Noble Hospital, Multispecility center, Beron Quilla
Raichur.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs.
2,75,000/- towards medical expenses and to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a compensation, for his negligence in conducting caesarian operation with
cost
Date of institution :- 20-03-12.
Notice served :- 10-04-12.
Date of disposal :- 30-08-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate.
Opposite No represented by Sri. C. Kesava Rao, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Salma Begum against the opposite doctor U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- towards medical expenses and to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a compensation for his negligence in conducting caesarian operation with cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, in the month of March-2011, she was nine months pregnant, on 05-03-2011 she got delivery pains, as such, she consulted opposite doctor. As per his advise, she admitted the hospital of opposite and as per his advise, she consented for caesarian section for safety delivery. Accordingly, opposite doctor conducted caesarian section in his hospital on 06-03-2011, she gave birth to male child, after delivery she developed abdominal pain and urine leakage through her vagina, the same was intimated to opposite doctor. He gave some treatment but not cured, thereafter, she took treatment in Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital, Raichur. On 22-03-2011, she came to know that, at the time of conducting caesarian section by the opposite, he caused injury to her urine bladder therefore, there was leakage of urine constantly through her vagina. This was, happened due to negligence of opposite doctor at the time of conducting caesarian section, therefore she filed police complaint and issued notice to him, and thereby, she filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in this complaint.
3. The opposite doctor appeared in this case through her Advocate, filed written version by denying the allegations made against him, he contended that, before admitting her to his hospital, she was admitted in hospital with delivery labor. In prolonged obstructed labor, the genital tract might have compressed between the fetal head and the boney pelvis. The said prolonged pressure might be resulted in necrosis with subsequent fistula formation. In this way, after lapse of several days, urinary leakage started, it is not subject to caesarian section, there was no injury to the urinary bladder, if there was an injury to urinary bladder, then there will be instantaneous urine leakage but it is not in her case, there was no negligence on his part, accordingly, he prayed for to dismiss her complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, she undergone caesarian section at the time of delivery to a baby in the hospital of opposite doctor on 06-03-2011, but at the time of conducting caesarian section, opposite doctor caused injury to urinary bladder due to his negligence and the result of it, there will be continuous urine leakage through her vagina and thereafter opposite doctor not treated proper by showing his negligence, and thereby, he found guilty under deficiency in his service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In negative.
(2) In negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of one witness was filed, who is noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-38 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of opposite doctor was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Further affidavit-evidence of him was filed on 16-08-2012. Totally documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-19 are marked.
7. On perusal of the facts pleaded by the parties, their affidavit-evidence and respective documents filed by them, complainant’s case is apparently clear that, opposite doctor conducted caesarian section on 06-03-2011 at the time of delivery of the complainant and at that time, he caused injury to her urinary bladder and the result of it, there was continuous leakage of urine through her vagina.
8. Opposite doctor admitted the conducting of caesarian operation on the complainant at the time of delivery, but he denied the allegation of causing injury or damage to her urinary bladder she admitted prolonged labor and the result of it, there was a continuous of leakage of urine through her vagina at the later stage.
9. Further, it is contended by the doctor that, in prolonged obstructed labor, the genital tract might be compressed between the fetal head and the boney pelvis. The said prolonged pressure may result in necrosis with subsequent fistula formation. Urine leak, urine leak will not start until devitalized tissues have sloughed which may be after lapse of several days. If, there was an injury to the urinary bladder at the time of caesarian section, then there will be an instantaneous leakage of urine, there was not in the case of complainant.
10. The complainant relied on the following rulings.
1) 2008 STPL (CL) 188 (NC)
G.Balakrishna Pai & another V/s. Sree. Narayana Medical Mission General Hospital and T.B. Clinic and others.
2) V.Kishanrao V/s. Nikhil Super Speciality Hosptial & Another
2010 SAR (Civil) 550.
3) New India Assurance Company Ltd., & another V/s. M/s. Venkatesh Babu
2011 (4) CPR 23 (NC)
4) United India Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Govind Ballabh Kapri & Ors.
III (2008) CPJ 270.
11. The learned advocate for opposite relied on the following rulings.
1) M/s. Beena Garg V/s. Kailash Nursing Home & Ors
III (2002) CPJ 99 (NC)
2) Relevant Literature of the Book Williams Obstetrics 23rd Edition (Page No. 899 to 900.
12. Now, it is settled principles of law is that, the medical negligence has to be proved by the complainant-himself, medical negligence as alleged against opposite doctor in this case is mixed question of law and facts. As per the principles of rulings referred by the learned advocate for complainant noted at Sl.No.1 The medical negligence has to be decided in the light of preponderance of probabilities.
13. Keeping in view of the principles of the rulings relied by the complainant as noted above, we have noticed two probabilities under the circumstances of this case.
14. The first probability is that, opposite doctor might have caused injury to the urinary bladder of the complainant while conducting caesarian operation which amounts to his negligence, as is causing injury to the urinary bladder is no way connected to the caesarian section.
15. The second probability might be as submitted by the learned advocate for opposite in reference to the Medical Book William Obstetrics 23rd Edition Page No. 899. According to the related literature, prolonged pressure at the time of delivery may result in “necrosis with subsequent fistula formation and the leakage of urine”.
16. In the light of preponderance of probabilities of this case, we have not given much importance to the voluminous documents of complainant namely, bills and receipts of the hospital for her treatment. We have appreciated the material documents for to decide any one of the probability of this case.
17. Admittedly caesarian section conducted on 06-03-2011, the complainant was discharged from the hospital of opposite on 13-03-2011, the complainant’s say is that, after operation she suffered frequent fever with bulky abdomen, thereafter she was in continuous consultation with opposite doctor from 13-03-2011 to 22-03-2011. Finally she was referred to Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital, Raichur on 22-03-2011 by the opposite doctor.
18. The complainant never pleaded regarding the continuous leakage of urine from 06-03-2011 till 22-03-2011 and also not her case that, in between that period there was continuous urine leakage.
19. Now, we have to see the diagnostic reports and other medical reports conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital, when she admitted in the said hospital after 22-03-2011. For the first time in Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital, Raichur in between 22-03-2011 till 13-04-2011, several investigations done on her. Thereafter, for the second time, she admitted in the said hospital on 14-04-2011 and discharged on 28-04-2011, third time, again she was admitted on 14-04-2011 and discharged on 28-04-2011 and again she was admitted on 23-05-2011 and discharged on 17-06-2011.
20. The specific allegation by the complainant is that, there was damaged to her urinary bladder at the time of conducting caesarian section by the opposite. As we have already stated above, from 06-03-2011 till her discharge i.e, on 22-03-2011 from the hospital of opposite, no documentary evidences out coming to hold that, she was suffering from continuous of leakage of urine, due to injury or damaged said to have caused by the opposite.
21. Now, the available remaining records have produced by the complainant-herself, she came to know, for the first time to the damage of her urine bladder, only on 22-03-2011. Keeping in view of this fact, now let us examine the reports of diagnostic tests and other tests conducted in Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital.
22. Ex.P-13 is the Peripheral smear study dt. 22-03-2011. Ex.P-14 is Ultrasound of whole abdomen dt. 23-03-2011, Ex.P-15 is Serology test report dt. 23-03-2011. Ex.P-17 is the Culture & Sensitivity test d. 24-03-2011.
23. The second time ultra sound test conducted and its reports Ex.P-19 which shows the test of the whole abdomen dt. 07-04-2011, impression of the said test is “No Sonographic abnormality detected”. Ex.P-28 is the discharge summary report from 19-04-2011 to 28-04-2011, all these reports not showing any injury or damaged to her urinary bladder. But discharge summary Ex.P-28 discloses the fact that, complainant developed “Vesico Vaginal Fistula” and noticed that, discharge of Purulent “discharge seen at “Vulvo” and urine seen in vagina”.
24. The third time test of ultra sound of whole abdomen dt. 24-05-2011 was done and impression was more or less with similar symptoms as noted in Ex.P-8. The actual medical word used in third time ultra sound report as is “Vesico Uterine/Vesico Vagina Fistula with lower uterine collection” Ex.P-34 is the discharge summary from 23-05-2011 to 17-06-2011 shows “Vesico Vagina Fistula”. Keeping in view of these reports, now, let us see the medical literature in respect of such kind of situations arising after delivery, as per the said literature, in prolonged obstructed labor, “the genital tract may be compressed between the fetal head and boney pelvis”. Further it stated that, “prolonged pressure may result in necrosis with subsequent fistula formation”.
25. We have gone through the principles of the rulings referred by the learned advocate for opposite and we are of the opinion that, if really there was an injury or damaged to urine bladder of the complainant, then there will be instantaneously continuous leakage of urine through vagina.
26. In this regard the learned advocate for opposite has relied on expert’s report filed in criminal case. We have gone through the principles of the rulings referred by the learned advocate for complainant in this regard and also rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.Kishan Rao V/s. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & another, with great respect to their lordships, we are of the view that, all the principles noted in the above said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The complainant herself not stated regarding the instantaneous leakage of urine after caesarian section. The records filed by the complainant-herself and rulings relied her not establishes the fact of any kind of negligence by causing injury by the opposite doctor at the time of conducting caesarian section. The documents referred by the learned advocate for complainant at the time of his arguments not establishes the fact that, the discharge of urine through vagina of the complainant is the direct result of an injury said to have caused by the opposite doctor. The leakage of urine through her vagina might be for the reasons stated in the medical literature. Hence, the complainant cannot connect the future unfortunate developments in her health condition after caesarian operation, to the continuous urine leakage. All other materials placed before us are not sufficient to prove the alleged negligence against opposite doctor. As such, we are of the clear view that, complainant failed in proving the alleged negligence against opposite doctor and we cannot find any deficiency in his service thereby, we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
27. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint Accordingly, we answered Point No-2 in negative.
POINT NO.3:-
28. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-08-12).
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
