BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday the 22nd day of August, 2011
C.C.No.8/2010
Between:
Smt. B.Vasantha, W/o. B. Vijaya Bhaskar,
D.No.6/22, Resident of Miduthur (V - M) - 518 405,Kurnool District
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. Dr. Rani Prameela, Government Hospital,
Tekke, Nandyal.
2. Dr. Anuradha, Government Hospital,
Tekke, Nandyal.
3. The Superintendent, Government Hospital,
Tekke, Nandyal. ...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.Sivaramaiah, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri G.Madhusudhana Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and Smt. D.S.Saileela, Government Pleader for opposite party No.3 for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.8/2010
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties
- To pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the loss of life of the baby and loss of love and affection of the baby;
- To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship continuously for a period of four years;
- To pass costs of this complaint;
- To any other order or orders which are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- On 11-05-2008 at about 2-40 P.M. the complainant got labour pains and she got admitted in Government Hospital Nandyal. The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not bother to give treatment to the complainant from 11-05-2008 to 13-05-2008. On 14-05-2008 at about 9-30 A.M., the complainant got severe labour pains. At that time opposite party No.1 was on duty in Operation Theater and opposite party No.2 was in outpatient room. Due to negligence of the opposite parties and due to delay in conducting the caesarean the entire amniotic fluid was leaked out resulting the condition of the baby serious. When the complainants husband and her sister questioned opposite party No.1 for delay in conducting the operation, opposite party No.1 refused to treat the complainant by saying that the entire amniotic fluid was leaked out and it was very difficult to conduct caesarean operation. Opposite party No.1 advised them to take treatment from opposite party No.2. Then the complainant husband and her sister went to the opposite party No.2 and informed about the condition of the complainant. Opposite party No.2 reluctantly came to operation theater and conducted caesarean operation to the complainant. The complainant gave birth to a female baby. Then the staff of the hospital took the baby to ground floor for bathing. At about 2-30 P.M., Dr.Adinarayana Reddy who is a Pediatrician told that the condition of the baby was serious due to breathing problem which resulted due drinking of amniotic problem. The said problem resulted due to delay in conducting the caesarean operation. Opposite party No.2 conducted operation without the consent of the complainant or from her relatives. The baby died due to negligence of the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 conducted tubectomi operation without the consent and made the complainant to suffer irreparable loss. There was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On 21-05-2008 the complainant was discharged from the hospital. Due to the negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant got urine problem. On 31-05-2008 the complainant went to Dr.S.Anjaneyulu who gave treatment to the complainant for urine problem. On 15-12-2008 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties demanding them to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. After receiving the said notices opposite parties 1 and 2 gave reply notices with false allegations. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer. Treatment was given to the complainant by opposite parties in Government Hospital Nandyal. The service rendered by the opposite parties is not a service as defined in section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not paid any consideration to the opposite parties for surgical operation conducted on her. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Opposite party No.1 is a qualified Gynaecology and got 21 years of experience. The opposite party No.1 was not on duty in labour ward from 11-05-2008 to 13-05-2008. On 14-05-2008 at about 10-00 A.M. the opposite party No.1 examined the complainant for the first time and posted the case for caesarean section. The complainant was operated by opposite party No.2 on 14-05-2008. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer. The complainant availed the service in Government Hospital free of cost. Opposite party No.2 working as a Civil Surgeon, Gynecologist at Government Hospital, Nandyal she is a qualified and experienced doctor and conducted more than 350 caesarean sections in Government Hospital Nandyal. Opposite party No.2 was not on duty at labour ward on 11-05-2008 and 12-05-2008 she was on duty in labour ward on 13-05-2008. On 13-05-2008 opposite party No.2 examined the complainant and found that there is no leakage of amniotic fluid from her. The complainant has no labour pains on 13-05-2008. On the request of the complainants husband opposite party No.2 conducted tubectomi operation on the complainant along with caesarean operation. The complainant husband has given his written consent to conduct caesarean operation on the complainant. The complainant gave birth to a female child at about 12-25 P.M., on 14-05-2008. The condition of the baby was good. Later the baby was sent to Dr.C.Adinarayan Reddy, Civil Surgeon Pediatrician for checkup. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2. No postmortem was conducted on the deceased female baby to find out the cause of the death. The complainant did not inform the opposite parties about urine problem. There is no carelessness on the part of the opposite party No.2. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite party No.3 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant was admitted in the hospital on 11-05-2008 at 2-45 P.M. by the duty Medical Officer. At the time of admission the condition was normal and was not in labour pains. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties in giving treatment to the complainant. The hospital is providing free treatment and free medicines to all patients. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A10 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. PW1 is examined and Ex.X1 is marked. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavits of the opposite parties 1 to 3 are filed. Third party affidavit of Dr.Adinarayana is filed. Rw1 and RW2 are also examined.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the Medical service rendered by the opposite parties comes under the definition of service in section 2 (1) (0) of Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINT No.1:- Admittedly the complainant was admitted in Government Hospital Nandyal on 11-05-2008 at about 2-40 P.M. Ex.A1 (Ex.X1) is the case sheet maintained by the hospital. The complainant was admitted in the hospital for delivery. The complainant was there in the hospital as inpatient from 11-05-2008 to 21-05-2008. It is also admitted that on 14-05-2008 opposite party No.2 conducted caesarean operation and tubectomi operation to the complainant. The complainant gave birth to a Female child on 14-05-2008 and the said child died at about 2-50 P.M. on the same day. The complainant filed the present complaint against the opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- for loss of life of the baby and for causing mental agony.
8. Admittedly the opposite parties 1 and 2 are doctors who worked in Government Hospital Nandyal during the relevant period. According to opposite parties they rendered services to the complainant free of cost and no charges were collected for giving treatment and conducting caesarean operation and tubectomi operation. The main contention of the opposite parties is that the medical service rendered to the complainant from 11-05-2008 to 21-05-2008 was on free of cost and the said service does not come under the definition in section 2 (1) (0) of Consumer Protection Act. It is not the case of the complainant that charges were collected from her by the hospital authorities for conducting operation. It is also not the case of the complainant that the charges are being collected by the hospital from other patients. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant also it is not mentioned that the some amount was collected by the opposite parties for giving treatment in the Government Hospital. PW 1 who is a Superintendent Government Hospital, Nandyal examined on behalf of the complainant in his evidence stated that since six years hospital is not collecting user charges from the patients. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that free treatment is being given to all the patients in the Government Hospital, Nandyal. The same is not opposed by the complainant. It is also not the case of the complainant that the Government Hospital, Nandyal has been collecting charges from some of the patients. In a decision reported in [(1995) 6 S.C.C. 651] Indian Medical Association Versus V.P.Santha and others the Honourable Apex Court laid down that “the service rendered at a Government Hospital // Health Center/Dispensary where no charge whatsoever was made from any person availing of the services and all patients were given free service was outside the purview of the expression “service” as defined in section 2 (1) (0) of the Act.” In the present case the complainant has taken treatment in Government Hospital, Nandyal where all the patient are being given free service. Admittedly the complainant was provided free service by the opposite parties and no charge was collected from her. Therefore the medical service that was rendered to the complainant at Government Hospital, Nandyal does not fall under definition of service in section 2 (1) (0) of the Consumer Protection Act. The point is accordingly answered against the complainant.
9. Points 2 and 3 :- It is the case of the complainant that opposite parties 1 and 2 did not give treatment to the complainant in time and due to their delay in conducting the caesarean operation on the complainant the entire amniotic fluid was leaked out resulting the condition of the baby serious. Admittedly the complainant was admitted in Government Hospital, Nandyal on 11-05-2008 at 2-40 P.M., for delivery. It is the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that they were not on duty in the labour ward on 11-05-2008 and 12-05-2008. There is no mention in the case sheet Ex.A1 that opposite parties 1 and 2 were on duty at labour ward on 11-05-2008 and 12-05-2008. According to opposite party no.2 she was on duty at labour ward on 13-05-2008 and at that time the complainant was not having labour pains and it was recorded in the case sheet. There is no mention in the case sheet dated 13-05-2008 that there was leakage of amniotic fluid from the complainant. Admittedly on 14-05-2008 opposite party No.2 conducted caesarean and tubectomi operations on the complainant. The complainant gave birth to a female child and the said child died on the same day around 2-50 P.M. According to the complainant the baby died due to breathing problem which resulted due to drinking of amniotic fluid in womb. The opposite parities filed sworn affidavit of Dr.Adinarayana Pediatrician attached to Government Hospital Nandyal. It is stated that the baby borne to the complainant died at 2-50 P.M., on 14-05-2008 due to asphyxia. It is stated by him that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and that they took full degree of care while conducting the operation. It is not stated by Dr.Adinarayana Reddy that the baby got breathing problem due to drinking of amniotic fluid in the womb. Merely because the baby borne to the complainant died immediately after the birth it cannot be presumed that there was negligence in giving treatment to the complainant by opposite parties 1 and 2. It is not the case of the complainant that opposite party No.2 did not follow the required procedure while conducting the caesarean and tubectomi operation on the complainant on 14-05-2008. There is no expert medical evidence on record to show that amniotic fluid was leaked out from the complainant due to delay in conducting the caesarean operation.
10. It is also the case of the complainant that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in conducting the caesarean and tubectomi operations without proper consent and due to their negligence the complainant faced urine problem. Admittedly it is opposite party No.2 who conducted caesarean and tubectomi operations on the complainant on 14-05-2008. Opposite party No.2 (RW2) in her cross examination denied the suggestion that she conducted the tubectomi operation without obtaining proper consent. It is stated by PW 1 medical Officer attached Government Hospital Nandyal that consent of the husband of the complainant was taken before conducting tubectomi and caesarean operations on the complainant. Opposite party No.1 (RW1) also in her cross examination stated that there is a mention in case sheet that the consent of the husband of the complainant was taken on 13-05-2008. No doubt there are some corrections in Ex.X1 case sheet. Basing on the said corrections it cannot be concluded that opposite party No.2 was negligent in conducting the operation on the complainant on 14-05-2008. It is the case of the complainant that after she was discharged from Government Hospital Nandyal she took treatment from Dr.S.Anjaneyulu on 13-05-2008 for urine problem. The complainant did not choose to file the affidavit of the said doctor to show that the complainant developed urine problem due to the negligence of opposite party No.2 in conducting caesarean and tubectomi operations on 14-05-2008. There is no expert evidence on record to come to the conclusion that opposite party No.2 did not take proper care while conducting the operation on the complainant. No doubt opposite party No.2 being the doctor has to take ordinary care while conducting the operation as a prudent doctor. The complainant could not establish that there was negligence on the part of opposite party No.2 in conducting the operation on the complainant on 14-05-2008. As already stated the medical service rendered by opposite party No.2 to the complainant does not come under the definition of service in section 2 (1) (0) of the Act. Therefore it cannot be said that there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 22nd day of August, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : PW1 For the opposite parties : RW1 & 2
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of cased record of Government Hospital, Nandyal.
Ex.A2. Delivery certificate issued by the Government Hospital,
Nandyal.
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice dated 15-12-2008.
Ex.A4 Postal receipts (No.3).
Ex.A5 Postal acknowledgements (No.3).
Ex.A6 Reply notice dated 28-12-2008.
Ex.A7 Registered reply notice dated 13-01-2009.
Ex.A8 Office copy of Reply notice dated 02-01-2009.
Ex.A9 Treatment of Complete care Karthik clinic, Kurnool.
Ex.A10 Photo copy of reply notice dated 27-01-2009
along with covering letter.
PW 1 Deposition of Dr.E.Pandurangaiah, dated 31-08-2010.
Ex.X1 Case sheet relating to the complainant of A.P. Vaidya
Vidhana Parishad, Hyderabad, Register No.6030,
admission dated 11-05-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Case sheet particulars of Vasundara, W/o Venkanna,
No.6196, admission dated 14-05-2008.
Ex.B2 Case sheet relating to the complainant of A.P. Vaidya
Vidhana Parishad, Hyderabad, Register NO.1615, admission dated 14-05-2008.
RW 1 Deposition of Dr.P.Rani Prameela dated 26-10-2010.
RW 2 Deposition of Dr.M.Anuradha, dated 01-12-2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
