Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/33/2010

Dinesh Kumar Gupta s/o Kapoor Chand Gputa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Vinita Makkar - Opp.Party(s)

Nikhil Simlot

14 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 33/2010

 

Dinesh Kumar Gupta s/o Sh.Kapoor Chand Gupta r/o Tulsipura, Hindaun city, Distt. Karoli (Raj.)

Vs.

Dr.Vinita Makkar, Vinita Nursing Home, Hindaun city, Distt. Karoli. (Raj.)

 

Date of Order 14.5.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal- Member

 

Mr. Dinesh Kala counsel for the appellant

Mr. B.L.Aheer counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

 

2

 

DCF Karoli dated 18.11.2009 by which it dismissed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant's wife was admitted to Vinita Nursing Home, Hindaun city which is run by Dr.Vinita Makkar. The complainant's wife was admitted on 4.2.1996 at 6.00 p.m. and she delivered a male child at 9.15 p.m. after ten minutes of delivery she was shifted to general ward. At that time she was profusely bleeding and she complained of nausea. The complainant called the doctor and she checked the pulse of his wife and assured the complainant that everything was O.K. and bleeding after delivery was normal. After that Dr.Vinita retired to her residence at the first floor of the Nursing Home but condition of the complainant's wife was getting worse and doctor was informed of her condition but she did not turned up and finally at 11.00 p.m. the doctor came to see her and by that time the condition of complainant's wife had been worsened. She was profusely bleeding, her BP was not measurable and she had a very thin pulse. At 11.15 p.m. Dr.Vinita referred the patient to Government Hospital,Bharatpur and prepared a refer slip Anx.1 diagnosing that patient was suffering from post partum haemorrhage ( hereinafter referred as 'PPH'). When the patient

3

 

was being taken to Bharatpur Hospital in a jeep and she died on the way.

 

The complainant lodged a First Information Report with the police for medical negligence against the doctor but the police after investigation submitted a final report before the concerned magistrate and a protest petition lodged by the complainant was also dismissed by the concerned magistrate against which a revision petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court was also dismissed summarily.

 

The opposite party filed a written reply alongwith her affidavit before the learned DCF in which she stated that it was not a 'consumer dispute' as the complainant was related to Dr.K.S.Agarwal who was Anesthetist at Government Hospital,Bharatpur and the deceased Usha Gupta was his sister. The opposite party had a close relation with Dr.K.S.Agarwal thus, the complainant was not charged any fees or delivery charges . She also stated that the complainant's wife regularly came to her for check up during her pregnancy and she was not charged any fees. Thus, the complainant is not a 'consumer'. She also stated in her affidavit that the police had found no case against her of criminal negligence u/s 304 A of IPC and protest

4

 

petition has also been rejected. She stated that there has been no negligence in treatment of the patient as she is a qualified Gynaecologist. She has further deposed that bleeding after delivery is normal phenomena and she had given necessary injections for controlling the bleeding. There were no tears in cervix and vigina. She further deposed that at 11.00 p.m. when the BP of patient was not measurable, she was given necessary treatment and at that time as the patient needed blood transfusion her husband wanted the patient to be shifted to Bharatpur and then she referred the patient to Government Hospital,Bharatpur.

 

The learned DCF however accepted the defence, statements and dismissed the complaint.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Dr.Vinita has been negligent in discharging her duties as a doctor and immediately after delivery she shifted the patient to the general ward and retired to her residence at first floor and did not turn up to attend the patient after repeated requests though she was informed of the heavy bleeding. He further argued that after the FIR was lodged,Dr.Vinita had tried to manipulate the refer slip and admission ticket. In the refer slip at 11.15 p.m. she has recorded the BP as 100 while at 11.00 p.m. in the admission card

5

 

she has recorded the BP as 60 and why did she not referred the patient to Bharatpur till 11.50 p.m. He also argued that in the admission card she has wrongly mentioned that she was continously monitoring the patient after delivery. The learned counsel further submits that the learned DCF has based its findings on the result of criminal case but he argues that it is the settled law that findings given by the criminal court cannot be binding on the civil courts. He has also critised the judgment of the learned DCF on the ground that two yard sticks have been applied in appreciating the evidence of both the parties.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned DCF and has drawn our attention to the FIR and the police final report as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court passed in revision. On the basis of the record he has submitted that condition of the patient had suddenly got worsened. She was quite normal at the time she was shifted to the ward. It was a normal delivery and no complications were noticed.

 

We have heard the arguments advanced by both the counsels and have perused the record.

 

6

 

First we will like to deal with the point that whether the complainant comes within the definition of 'consumer' or not. The opposite party has assailed this complaint on the ground that the complainant was not charged any fees, any delivery charges or hospital charges, and throughout the delivery period his wife was given free check up because his wife was sister of Dr.K.S.Agarwal with whom the opposite party has close relations. This fact has been controverted by the complainant by way of affidavits. We have tried to appreciate the affidavits of both the sides and we find that we cannot accept the version of the opposite party that complainant was not charged any fees. The opposite party is running a private nursing home. She does not mention in her affidavit as to when Dr.K.S.Agarwal had introduced her sister to the opposite party. How and when the opposite party came to know that the deceased was the sister of Dr.K.S.Agarwal is not on record. When the condition of the complainant's wife worsened in the night she did not bother to inform Dr.K.S.Agarwal that his sister's condition is serious and she is being referred to Bharatpur for blood transfusion. The opposite party claims to have close relationship with Dr.K.S.Agarwal but still this conduct of the opposite party lead us to disbelieve her statements that she did not charge anything from the complainant.

7

 

Second defence of the complainant was that she has been exonerated by the police and by the criminal court. We are in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that findings of the criminal courts are not binding. We have however, perused the copies of the record of the criminal proceedings placed on file. We find that question of medical negligence was not elaborately discussed during investigation or during protest petition. The police took a certificate from Dr.Bhagwan Singh who was working as government doctor in Hindaun city and he found that the treatment given to the patient was alright. On the basis of this certificate the police submitted FR and protest of the complainant was also dismissed by the concerned magistrate since it was not a question of treatment given to the patient. The question was whether after delivery when the opposite party was informed of the excessive bleeding, did she take reasonable steps to control the bleeding or to take all necessary measures and steps to control the condition of the patient.

 

PPH is excessive bleeding from or into genital tract within 24 hours of the birth of the child. The average blood loss in normal labour should not exceed 300 ml if it amounts to 600 ml. or more it is regarded as PPH. The complainant in his affidavit

8

 

cited from text book of obstetrics by D.C.Dutta in which it has been mentioned that patient should be observed for 2 hours after delivery and after being satisfied that uterus is hard and contracted, the pulse and blood pressure are within normal limits then only the patient should beshifted to the ward. In this case ten minutes after the delivery the patient was shifted to general ward and the opposite party did not come to see her despite repeated calls and ultimately after hue and cry by the complainant she came to see her at 11.00 p.m by the time the condition had worsened.

 

The complainant has also cited from another book of A.L.Murlidhar and M.K.Krishna Manon in which it has been mentioned that general signs of haemorrhage become progressivly manifest increasing pulse rate, increasing polar drop in blood pressure, restlessness, faintness, sweating and air hunger.

 

The complainant in his affidavit has specifically mentioned that immediately after shifting to the ward, his wife was restless and in a state of faintness. After shifting the opposite party had once come to the patient, she did not take the BP, only checked the pulse. The complainant has also cited in his affidavit

9

 

from another book that fatal PPH is rarely due to sudden massive bleeding. The outcome therefore depends on the care with which the delivery is conducted, the watchfullness of obstetrician and the speed and intensiveness of effective treatment adopted.

 

In view of this observation if we observe the conduct of the opposite party we find that complainant's wife was shifted to the ward immediately after delivery and only around 10.00 p.m opposite party came to check the pulse and at that time also complaint of excessive bleeding was made to her but she took no notice of it and told the complainant that it was normal and between 10.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m despite calls she did not come to attend the patient. A qualified doctor can very well anticipate the danger when she was repeatedly given calls for excessive bleeding of the complainant through nursing home staff. She did not take reasonable care which was expected of her as attending doctor and ultimately when she found that condition has been worsened she immediately referred the patient to Bharatpur as is normally done by private nursing homes for fear of loss of their reputation and business in case of any untoward incident in their nursing home. We find that if she had taken appropriate measures and attended the patient on first call and had taken note of excessive bleeding and taken appropriate measures and started

10

 

treatment, the life of the complainant's wife could have been saved. The complainant's affidavit is also supported by affidavit of Dr.K.S.Agarwal who has deposed that he never knew Dr.Vinita Makkar and have no relations with her. Thus, denying the fact that Dr.Vinita Makkar had charged nothing from the complainant. The complainant's affidavit is also further supported by Vimla Devi who has also deposed that despite repeated calls the opposite party did not come to attend when the complainant's wife was excessivly bleeding. Another affidavit of Puneet Dutt Sharma who has deposed that he happened to be at Vinita Nursing Home on 4.2.1996 as one of his relative was admitted there. He further deposed that he knew the complainant who was a J.En. in the electricity department and when his wife was shifted to the ward she was feeling nausea and excessive bleeding and doctor had not come to attend her until 11.00 p.m that night.

 

We also suspect that admission ticket was prepared after the patient had died. There are contradictions in the refer ticket and the admission ticket prepared by Dr.Vinita.Copy of the admission ticket was not given to the complainant at the time of admission and it was submitted to the police. In the refer ticket she diagnosed the patient suffering from PPH. If the admission

11

 

ticket had been prepared at the time of admission how could she diagnose complainant's wife suffering from PPH and her referrel to Bharatpur hospital was also mentioned. We do not know it was admission card or admission-cum- discharge card as it mentions only admission card.

 

In view of these evidences we intend to accept the appeal and find that case of medical negligence has been reasonably proved by the complainant through his evidence and conduct of the opposite party is evident of the negligence in the treatment of the complainant's wife. The findings of the criminal court are not binding.We allow this appeal and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.7000/- charged by her for delivery and pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for medical negligence to the complainant within one month. The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- as cost of prosecution.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm