Punjab

Sangrur

CC/512/2014

Suman Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Simpy Jindal - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajan Kapil

18 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    512

                                                Instituted on:      02.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       18.05.2015

 

1.     Suman Devi wife of Rajesh Kumar, aged 30 years.

2.     Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Rattan Singh, residents of Village Kular Khurd, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.             Dr. Mrs. Simpy Jindal, Vinayak Hospital, Jakhal Road, Old Bombay Palace, Sunam, District Sangrur.

2.             Dr. B.K.Goyal, Goyal Surgical and Maternity Hospital, Sunam, District Sangrur.

3.             United India Insurance Company Ltd. 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Mool Chand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110 024 through authorised signatory Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rajan Kapil, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Karunvir Vashisht, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Suman Devi and Shri Rajesh Kumar,  complainants (referred to as complainants in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant number 1 was pregnant on 20.3.2014 for 31 weeks and four days and her expected date of delivery was 18.5.2014.  It is further averred that on 20.3.2014 the complainant number 1 got herself medically checked up at Punjab Health Systems Corporation Sangrur vide OPD slip number 048918 dated 20.3.2014 and the complainant was advised ultrasound, which was got done on 15.4.2014 from Raj Nursing Home and Ultrasound Centre, Sunam and as per his report, expected date of delivery was 18.5.2014.  It is further averred that on 16.4.2014 the complainant number 1 felt some trouble of acidity and as such again hired the services of OP number 1 for treatment, who advised ultrasound.  The complainant showed the ultrasound report dated 15.4.2014, but OP number 1 also got tested HB of the complainant and advised medicine and charged the requisite fee.  It is further averred that when the complainant number 1 with her husband was returning to their house, then OP number 1 deputed one nurse who stated that the child will took birth after some time.  The complainant number 1 told that she is not having any labour pains and still one month is left and even expected date of delivery is 18.5.2014, but OP number 1 immediately admitted complainant number 1 and remained admitted in the hospital upto 19.4.2014 and tried to deliver the child by administering injections, due to which the bleeding started and complainant number 1 felt too much pain, as such OP number 1 shifted the complainant number 1 to OP number 2, who after verifying the reports stated that it is a case of normal delivery. OP number 2 tried his best to control the bleeding and opined that due to bleeding there is danger to the life of the mother and child and advised surgical operation.  On 20.4.2014, OP number 2 performed the surgical operation and complainant number 1 delivered male child and it was stated that food pipe of the newly borne child is blocked and as such the child was referred and admitted in the PGI Hospital Chandigarh, where the child died on 25.4.2014.  In this manner the OP number 1 has tried to put the life of complainant number 1 in extreme peril/danger and attempted to premature delivery, as such, it is stated that the OP number 1 is deficient in rendering service.  Thus, the complainants have prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of compensation for medical negligence and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has filed complaints before the SSP and Civil Surgeon and they have in turn appointed the medical board, that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious in nature, that the complainant has filed the complaint with false allegations and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited. On merits, it is stated that OP number 1 has only treated the patient for low haemoglobin and acidity causing pain and OP number 1 treated the patient diligently, prudently with due care and caution for low haemoglobin and there is no negligence, unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1. It is stated further that it was the 3^rd child of the complainant. It is further stated that injections betnesol were given, which is given in the circumstances of premature delivery cases for the child’s benefit.   It is stated that the new born baby died his own death at PGI. It is stated that the patient (complainant number 1) left against medical advice of OP number 1 on her own and shifted to Goyal Hospital and the complainant did not obtain any consent of OP number 1 for getting shifted to another hospital.  It is further stated that as per the medical board inquiry report, OP number 2 stated that the bleeding was due to marginal separate of the placenta which was due to polyhydramnios.  OP number 1 has not caused esphageal atresia, which is a cogenital defect. It is stated further that all the allegations are without any admissible evidence under the Evidence Act and further the Op number 1 has stated that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or relief against OP number 1.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant has levelled the allegations against OP number 1 and OP number 2 and that OP number 3 has no personal knowledge about the same.  It is stated that the complainants approached the OP and the condition of the complainant number 1 was serious due to excessive bleedings and there at that point of the time the OP suggested the complainant that due to excessive bleeding, there might be danger to the life of the complainant as well as the life of her child, as such a surgical operation was suggested, for which the complainants gave consent. It is further stated that after the surgical operation, the complainant number 1 gave birth to a live male child on 20.4.2014, but unfortunately the food pipe of the child was blocked and the child was immediately referred to PGI Chandigarh for further treatment.   The other allegations of the complainant in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, it is admitted that on the request of the OP number 1, the OP number 3 issued a professional indemnity doctors policy w.e.f. 1.11.2013 to 31.10.2014 subject to the terms and conditions for Rs.10,00,000/-. It is stated further that neither the complainants nor OP number 1 lodged any claim with the OP number 3,  as such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3 has been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of OPD slip, Ex.C-4 copy of ultrasound report, Ex.C-5 copy of laboratory report, Ex.C-6 copy of prescription slip, Ex.C-7 copy of lab report, Ex.C-8 copy of prescription slip, Ex.C-9 copy of PGI Card and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2 affidavits, Ex.OP1/3 copy of application, Ex.OP1/4 copy of report dated 9.8.2014, Ex.OP1/5 copy of application dated 9.5.2014, Ex.OP1/6 copy of application dated 4.8.2014, Ex.OP1/7 copy of test report, Ex.OP1/8 copy of application dated 13.5.2014, Ex.OP1/9 copy of report dated 21.5.2014, Ex.OP1/10 copy of report dated 2.6.2014, Ex.OP1/11 copy of report dated 25.7.2014, Ex.Op1/12 copy of medical board inquiry report dated 11.7.2014, Ex.Op1/13 statement of Rajesh Kumar before medical board, Ex.OP1/14 copy of statement of Jarnail Singh, Ex.Op1/15 copy of statement of Dharam Veer Sharma, Ex.Op1/16 copy of cross of Rajesh Kumar, Ex.OP1/17 copy of cross Dharam Veer Sharma, Ex.OP/18 copy of cross of Dr. B.K.Goyal, Ex.OP1/19 copy of cross of Dr. Simpy Jindal, Ex.OP1/20 copy of discharge slip of Goyal Hospital, Sunam, Ex.OP1/21 copy of laboratory test report, Ex.Op1/22 copy of treatment record of Goyal Hospital, Sunam, Ex.Op1/23 copy of consent letter, Ex.OP1/24 copy of indoor file and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of indoor chart, Ex.OP2/3 copy of authorisation letter, Ex.OP2/4 to Ex.OP2/5 copies of reports and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 copy of policy, Ex.OP3/2 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             The complainant number 1 visited the clinic of OP number 1 on 16.4.2014 for treatment and expected date of delivery of the child was 18.5.2014 as per the ultrasound report dated 15.4.2014 of Raj Nursing Home and Ultrasound Centre, Sunam.  On 18.4.2014 the complainants again visited the clinic of OP number 1 and complainant number 1 was got admitted by OP number 1 on the ground that the child may take birth after some time and then OP number 1 tried to deliver the child after administering the injection and due to this, the bleeding started and the complainant number 1 became serious.  Then OP number 2 tried to control the bleedings and suggested surgical operation.  On 20.4.2014, the OP number 2 performed the operation and a male child was borne, but the food pipe of the child was blocked, so the child was refereed to be admitted at PGI Chandigarh, where ultimately the child died on 25.4.2014.  It is further alleged that the child died due to the negligence of OPs number 1 and 2 and due to their negligence, normal delivery case was operated upon prematurely and as a result of which the child died soon after the delivery. 

 

8.             OP number 1 has admitted that on 16.4.2014, some medicines were prescribed by her and the complainant was admitted on 18.4.2014, but on 19.4.2014, the complainant had left the hospital against medical advice.  The child was borne on 20.4.2014 at Goyal Hospital (OP number 2), but OP number 2 had referred the child of the complainant number 1 to PGI Chandigarh, where the child died on 25.4.2014.  The Ops have denied any deficiency in service on their part and have pleaded that they are professionally qualified doctors.

 

9.             In the present complaint, the version of the OPs is that due to polyhydramnios injection Betnesol was given to the complainant and the same was to be given in such like cases. 

 

10.            The learned counsel for the OPs has further contended vehemently that the issue of medical negligence has already been examined by the medical board and the complainant also filed complaints before the Senior Superintendent of Police and Civil Surgeon, Sangrur. OP number 1 had only treated the complainant for low haemoglobin and acidity and the premature delivery is due to excessive water in the womb i.e. polyhydromnios, whereas OP number 2 had suggested the surgical operation due to excessive bleeding of complainant number 1.

 

11.            We have gone through the medical report dated 11.7.2014, which shows that due to polyhydromnios, there could be artificial pains and in such cases, the injection Betnesol is given.  The Board has further stated that earlier delivery could take place irrespective of ultrasound report and has neither the delivery  taken place in the hospital of the OPs nor the child died there, so the OPs are not at fault.

 

12.            The main point in the complaint revolves around ultrasound report that expected date of delivery was 18.5.2014, but ultrasound report dated 15.4.2014, which is document Ex.C-4 also says that “ I acknowledge that no guarantee has been made to me regarding 100% accuracy of the report”.  The complainant has not been able to place any evidence on record to prove that the death of the child is due to the medical negligence of OPs number 1 and 2.  Moreover, no medical expert evidence has been produced by the complainant on the file to establish any medical negligence on the part of the OPs number 1 and 2, whereas Op number 3 is the insurance company.

 

13.            In the light of above discussion, we  find no merit in the case and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 18, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                    Member

 

                                                          

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member