Date of Filing: 06-10-2015
Date of Order:21-01-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Monday, the 21st day of January, 2019
C.C.No.514 /2015
Between
Dokku Bhikshapathi,S/o.Dokku Adi Seshu
Age: 37 years, H.No.12-2-506/39,
Gudimalkapur, Mehdipatnam,
Hyderabad–500028,Mobile:-9492031176 ……Complainant
And
- Dr.Pallavi Kathare,Pediatric Cardiologist,
Care hospital Banjara Hills,
Care hospital , Road No.1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034
- Dr. K.Nageswara Rao Koneti,Pediatric Cardiologist,
Care hospital Banjara Hills,
Care hospital , Road No.1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034
- Care Hospital Banjarahills,
Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Dr.B.Soma Raju,Care hospital , Road No.1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034
(OP No.3 impleaded as per I.A.No.427 of 2017
Dt.12-02-2018) ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri A.Srinath
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties and in consequences of it seeking to refund the cost incurred at their hospital and to award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony and stress.
The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant’s wife Smt.A.Bhargavi consulted Dr.Lavanya, a Gynecologist of the Care hospital as she was a pregnant regularly from November, 2013 to January, 2014. In the 5th month of the pregnancy they were advised to get foetal echo cardio graphic test and same was done on 2-1-2014 by opposite party No.1 under the Supervision of Dr.K.Nageshwar Rao, a Pediatric Cardiologist. After seeing the reports and observations therein the doctors told to the complainant and his wife that there is a hole and unequal size of valves in heart and orally informed that due to hole in heart some other complications like mental disorders and growth issues may occur. They also indicated that the child has to be operated after the birth. The report was shown to Dr.Lavanya who advised to undergo some other tests to know other problems to take a view on continuance of pregnancy. Since the issue was delicate the complainant and his wife intended to have a second opinion before undergoing the tests or taking a decision on continuance of pregnancy in view of likely complications. When asked Dr.Lavanya to refer to any other Cardiologist she referred the complainant’s wife Bhargavi to Rainbow Hospital. Accordingly complainant took his wife to Rainbow hospital where a scan was done on 3-1-2014 and report was given stating that there was no problem to the baby in the womb. On 6-1-2014 the complainant went to opposite party No.1’s Care hospital about the report given in Rainbow hospital. Thereupon opposite party No.1 made an endorsement on the back of report that since it is an early pregnancy test, the same test may be repeated after two weeks and same was intimated to the complainant in the Care hospital on 7-2-2014 through online feedback form. In the month of March, the complainant and his wife were called for a meeting at Care hospital and informed that it is a technical issue as the test was done on the scanning machine. The complainant and his wife considered that there is no fault of machine but negligence of care hospital doctors. The complainant and his wife underwent physical strain during the test and suffered mental agony and shock on hearing about the report of opposite party No.1 Care hospital likely consequences and it shows negligence on the part of the doctors there. The doctors of Care hospital were negligent because of that the complainant was constrained to go for second opinion. On account of casual and careless approach by the doctors the complainant and his wife suffered big stress and mental agony as she felt that growth and future of the baby are unfathomable. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing inconvenience, physical strain and agony. Hence the present complaint.
2. Written version filed by opposite party No.2 is adopted by opposite party No.1&3 admitting about the examination of the complainant’s wife Smt Bhargavi and conducting test to her but denied the allegations of the negligence on the part of the doctors of Care hospital. The substance of the defense taken by the opposite parties is that the complainant’s wife Smt.Bhargavi consulted Dr.Lavanya Gynecologist as her advice foetal Echo cardio graphic test was conducted at Care hospital and the report pointed a justifiable suspicion of a hole in the baby’s heart. It was explained to the complainant and his wife about the possibilities of complications and methods available to cure the same at the initial stage subject to various factors during the completion of period of pregnancy and suggested for a confirmatory test by facilitating the Smt.Bhargavi to consult and referred to Gynecologist and thereby facilitated in obtaining second opinion with a fair and genuine manner. There upon the complainant’s wife Smt.Bhargavi was sent to Dr.Lavanya Gynecologist where a test report indicated something which was slightly different which is not altogether unknown as the view and visibility during the testing process is subject to limitations and can change.
Opposite party No.1 advised for repetition of test for clear view of the foetal for further clarity after two weeks for confirmation of the results. The doctors at Care hospital gave a fair chance to the complainant by conducting a meeting and explained the varied possibilities in respect of test results. The complainant was further informed that the test was conducted as per standard protocols with an experienced specialist and supporting staff. The complainant without understanding well meaning efforts of doctors at Care hospital and their genuine professional solutions approach attempting to take advantage for unlawful gain and unfounded allegations of medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. There is neither wrong at Care hospital doctors nor medical negligence or carelessness on the part of the opposite parties.
There is possibility of error in the result for the same reason confirmed test was suggested hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry stage the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material allegations made in the complaint and he has got exhibited four (4) documents. Similarly for the Opposite Parties evidence affidavit of opposite party No.2 Dr. K.Nageswar Rao is filed reiterating the defense set out in the written version. Both parties have filed written arguments and supplemented the same with the oral submissions.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration is
- Whether the approach of opposite parties to the complainant and his wife was casual without due diligence and thereby caused deficiency of service entailing the complainant to claim compensation ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The complainant stand that his wife Smt.A.Bhargavi regularly under the consultation of Dr.Lavanya, Gynecologist of Care Hospital during the period from November, 2013 to January, 2014 is not denied . Similarly the opposite parties also have not denied about the conducting of foetal echo cardio graphic test on the pregnant women on 2-1-2014 under the supervision of Dr.K.Nageswar Rao, a Pediatric Cardiologist. Similarly there is no denial of explaining the complainant’s wife that there is a hole and unequal size of valves in heart of baby and orally informed that due to hole in heart some other complications like mental disorders and growth issues. They also told that the child may require a surgery after birth. The reports and the advice given by the opposite party No.1 at Care hospital is found to be in correct as per the report received from the Rainbow hospital where the complainant and his wife went for test to have a second opinion before deciding about the continuance of pregnancy, in view of the likely complications explained by the doctors at Care hospital. As could be seen from the endorsement made by the opposite party on the back of report at Care hospital made on 6-1-2014 they advised for repeating of test after 2 weeks for confirmation. As rightly urged by the complainant, the opposite parties are trying to deny the carelessness and casual approach with the help of technical papers whose extracts are incorporated in the written version as well as the evidence affidavit filed on their behalf. As could be seen from the Ex.A3 the doctors at Care hospital have drawn a diagram of the heart of baby on a white paper while explaining the possibility of hole in the heart and unequal valves. The opposite parties are trying to say that repetition of test was advised for confirmation in the result after two weeks but the said advise endorsement was made on 6-1-2014 i.e, after the test result from the Rainbow hospital. It is repeatedly said by the opposite parties that the complainant was advised to go for second opinion and the facilitated for it. But as could be seen from the Ex.A1 there is no endorsement or an advice to complainant to go for second opinion from a senior Gynecologist. The opposite parties have not filed any paper to support their version that the complainant’s wife was advised to go for second opinion before deciding for future course of action. So the plea taken that they have suggested for second opinion is not true. The opposite parties did not conduct a second test before giving confirmation scan report and likely consequences to the baby. It shows lack of sensivity while explaining the complainant and his wife about the likely complications to the baby for continuance of pregnancy and a surgery after the birth. One can imagine the mental stress and agony of pregnant woman when she was informed that a hole in the heart of the baby in the womb and unequal size of valves. The doctors ought to have got confirmed the same after having second test from different and Senior Gynecologist and Cardiologist. Though complainant and his wife suffered one day, the sufferance is sufficient to cause any amount of mental agony. The endorsement made on the back of Ex.A1 is only as an afterthought to avoid the allegation of carelessness and casual approach. The very fact that the doctors at Care hospital explained to complainant and his wife likely complications of baby on account of hole in the heart and un even valves without confirmed test speaks the volumes of negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It is a clear case of sheer negligence and casual approach by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have caused mental agony and strain to the complainant and his pregnant wife. Hence the complainant is entitled for compensation. The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant for undergoing mental agony and stress. Accordingly the point is answered infavour of the complainant.
Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties
- To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation within one month from the date of service of the order as otherwise they are liable to pay interest at 9% P.A from the date of complaint to the date of payment.
- The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 21st day of January , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Dokku Bhikshapathi Dr. K.Nageswara Rao
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1is Antenatal card
Ex.A2 is Rainbow hospital report
Ex.A3 is diagrammatic explanation paper document
Ex.A4 is Fetal Echo Cardiography
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party –Nil-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
