Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/115/2017

P.Sasi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Kavitha,Dr.K.Shanthi Department of obstetrics & Gynecology - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Gurumoorthy,N.Yugananthan

20 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  11.04.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  20.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

 PRESENT: TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM,B.Sc.,B.L.,DTL.,DCL.,DL &AL  : PRESIDENT

              THIRU. D.BABU VARADHARAJAN B.Sc.,B.L.,  :    MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE  20^th  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

 

C.C.NO.115/2017

 

 

P.Sasi,

357, MGR Nagar, Kasimedu,

Royapuram,

Chennai – 600 013.

                                                                                           ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.  

 

•  

Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology,

Government Moffusil Stanley Hospital,

Tondiarpet Unit, Kailasam Street,

Chennai – 600 081.

….Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 18.09.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.S.Guru Moorthy, N.Yuganathan

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                   : Mr.Ponram Rajaa

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM,B.Sc.,B.L.,DTL.,DCL.,DL &AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings and cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant was admitted as an inpatient (No.1773) Government Moffusil Stanley Hospital (Tondiarpet Unit) due to her lower abdominal pain on 24.09.2016 and she was attended by the opposite parties who took several test and advised the complainant to undergo Dilatation and Curettage (D & C) procedure and then the complainant gave her consent for D & C procedure only. To her surprise, the opposite parties removed her uterus (hysterectomy) instead of D & C procedure without getting her consent for the removal of her uterus. Due to the said negligent removal of her uterus by the opposite parties, she was suffering from seizures and diarrhea which ended in intolerable pain. After knowing the negligent removal of her uterus, the said doctors repeatedly compelled her including her husband to sign in the blank white paper. Without any other alternative to safeguard her health and life, on 26.10.2016, she left from the said hospital without getting her discharge summary due to the compulsion from the opposite parties. Regarding the said unlawful removal of her uterus, the USG of her abdomen was taken from HIBEAM SCANS on 01.11.2016  and the same was confirmed in the report also. Hence, the opposite parties alone liable to compensate her for their negligence committed in the treatment.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties state that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties since the same was filed in personal capacity.  The opposite parties are the Government Servants and the complainant availed the medical service under Government Stanley hospital. There was no relationship of Consumer and Service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties The complainant was admitted on 24.09.2016 with the complaint of bleeding per vagina for past four  years. She was having history of two cycles per month. She is type I Diabetic patient with insulin dependent. She was having hypothyroidism. Besides she has donated a one Kidney 20 years before. Thus she was diagnosed to have DUB (Dysfunctional Uterine Bleedings) that is she is having abnormal bleeding. The complainant was subject to the clinical and Radiological Examinations. USG reveals multiple fibroids in the uterus. Hence the opposite parties performed D & C. The D & C also reveals abnormal chronic cervicitis. Since the complainant vital parameters are fluctuated, she was subject to rigorous treatment by diabetologist and other specialist. The opposite parties came to the final conclusion that the bleeding was due to multiple fibroids and decided to perform hysterectomy with BSO.  On 29.09.2016 cardiologist opinion was obtained for total abdominal hysterectomy  with BSO.  As advised by the anesthesiologist on 04.10.2016 high risk consent was obtained from the complainant and her husband. As per code of medical ethics since the reproductive organs to be removed, the opposite parties obtained consent on 22.10.2016 from the complainant and her husband. Any averment contained contrary to the aforesaid fact is hereby denies as false. On 22.10.2016 the opposite parties performed the hysterectomy with BSO under spinal anesthesia. The complainant recovered fully well. There were no post operative complications. However on 27.10.2016 the complainant was absconded from the ward. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.         

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

04. POINT NO :1

             The Complainant was admitted as an in-patient In Govt.   Stanley Hospital (Tondiarpet unit) due to Lower Abdomen Pain on 24.09.2016 and was attended by the opposite parties. As per their advice she took several tests, and had given consent to undergo Dilatation and Curettage procedure. Medical records from Govt. Stanley Hospital are Ex.A1 Series. The complainant contends that opposite parties  have removed the uterus of the Complainant without the consent of the complainant, due to the negligent removal of the uterus by opposite parties, Complainant was suffering from seizures and Diarrhea which ended in intolerable pain. Knowing well of their Negligent act, The opposite parties  have compelled the Complainant to sign in Blank papers. Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are the USG of Abdomen Scan and report. Ex.A4 is the receipt for the payment of Scan in Hi beam Diagnostic Research Foundation Pvt., Ltd.

             05.  The Complainant’s admission in the said Hospital and was treated by opposite parties  and the Complainant underwent Dilatation and Curettage Procedure, and her Uterus was removed are all admitted facts. Complainant’s main contention is that she gave consent only for Dilatation and Curettage Procedure and without her consent Uterus was removed and opposite parties  have obtained the signature from the Complainant and her Husband in a plain paper,  hence it is an Unlawful and negligent act for which both the opposite parties  are responsible. 

            06.  The opposite parties  would contend that she had many problems such as Diabetes mellitus, Hypothyroidism and Post Left Nephrectomy status.   Many of the  Doctor’s opinion with respect to her ailments was obtained before surgery and  the Complainant and her Husband  have given consent for the Surgery  and this Complaint is filed only to extract money with false allegations.

            07.  Ex. B1 is the Copy of the Case sheets of the Complainant from  Govt. Stanley Hospital. Ex.B2 is the Absconding report of the Complainant.             Ex.B1 case sheets reveals that the complainant is suffering from  Diabetes mellitus, Hypothyroidism  & post Left  Nephrectomy status.  Consent for removal of Uterus was also obtained on 22.10.2016. The writings are in Tamil only.  For other reported  ailments of the complainant, concerned doctor’s opinion and medications are obtained as per records. The signature is obtained in the case records in printed formet   for the removal of Uterus hence the contention of the complainant that the  consent is obtained only for Dilatation and Curettage procedure is  incorrect. Therefore  that contention of the complainant is not considered by this forum as true. The Complainant had also not substantiated her case of alleged sufferings from Seizures and Diarrhea after the removal of Uterus.  No Medical report or Bills are produced to prove the case of seizures and Diarrhea after the surgery.  It is inferred from Ex. B2 that the Complainant has absconded from the Hospital. The Complainant has also admitted that she left the Hospital without intimation and not received the Discharge Summary, while so there is no explanation as how she traced  the records of Ex.A1 from the Hospital. The Complainant neither filed written argument nor argued the case orally.

          08.  The records submitted in Ex.A1 Case Sheets contains the relevant papers upto 15.10 2016, whereas the surgery was done on 22.10 2016 and Ex.B1 case records contains full sheets upto 27.10.2016. The consent was obtained in the Hospital on 22.10.2016 as per records.  In Ex.A1 series in page no.4, there is no signature of the Doctor, it has contents till 15.10.2016, therefore it cannot be taken as a relevant   point for considering the complainant’s case of non-obtaining the consent by the opposite parties .    The Complainant has also not substantiated the allegations against the opposite parties  that they have compelled the complainant and her husband to sign in blank papers after surgery. The complainant   failed to prove that the Uterus has been negligently removed by opposite parties   as alleged by her. The Complaint is also not maintainable as the complaint is filed against the opposite parties  in their individual capacity and especially the services are utilized by the complainant in the Govt. Hospital. Therefore we conclude that the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 

09. POINT NO:2

          As per the discussions held above, the complainant has not proved the alleged negligence against the opposite parties  and she is not entitled to get any relief against the opposite parties .

 In the Result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th  day of November 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 07.10.2016                   Copy of Medical Records from Govt. Stanley

                                                    Hospital

 

Ex.A2 dated 01.11.2016                   Copy of USG of Abdomen from HIBEAM Scans

Ex.A3 dated 01.11.2016                   Copy of  USG Report of Abdomen from HIBEAM

                                                    Scans

 

Ex.A4 dated 01.11.2016                   Receipt from HIBEAM Scans

Ex.A5 dated 02.01.2017                   Legal Notice sent by the complainant

Ex.A6 dated 12.02.2017                   Reply notice from the opposite parties

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Copy of Case Sheet

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Copy of Absconded Report   

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT