DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th day of October 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President in charge<br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.90/2006<br /> Mary Nancy<br /> W/o. Anil Joy<br /> Athulya<br /> Kadamkode <br /> Palakkad - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Dr.L.V. Meenakshi<br /> Dr. Madhavi Amma Medical Trust<br /> Hindustan Maternity Home<br /> Harikkara Street<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Smt. K.P. Suma, Member<br /> <br /> The complainant's case was that during 2004, when she was pregnant, she was receiving medical treatment at the opposite parties hospital and that on 09.06.2004, she consulted the opposite party complaining of severe abdominal pain. After scanning,the opposite party had informed that there were no complications either for the baby or the complainant. She was discharged on 11.06.2004 after prescribing some pain relieving tablets. On 13.06.2004 her abdominal pain became intolerable. She was taken to opposite party hospital. The nurses at the hospital conducted examination and informed that it was a case of cord prolapse. On administering some pain reducing drugs, she had delivered a baby which was dead. It was a case of IUD. Even <br /> - 2 -<br /> after that her pain did not subside and she was advised to undergo a surgery for hysterectomy since manual removal of adherent placenta was not possible even after conducting D & C. It was told that the same was to be removed only by way of surgery, otherwise the life of the complainant was at risk. After the surgery on 15.06.2004 the opposite party informed the complainant and her relatives were that her uterus was removed and the same was unavoidable. The opposite party introduced the surgeons without the consent or knowledge of the complainant. It is further stated that the delay caused with opposite parties diagonosis, attention at material time and lack of mind and logic with conclusion had resulted in the unfortunate fate of the complainant. <br /> <br /> She submits in her complaint that there was considerable negligence on the opposite party in the whole incident as if the opposite party had taken proper medical care on the first admission itself, the entire incident would not have happened. The same had left her chances of becoming a mother a dream. <br /> <br /> The complainant had caused a registered lawyer notice to the opposite party seeking damages to her to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.30,000/- as medical expenses. After receiving the notice the opposite party sent a reply denying the entire statements. Hence this complaint has no other option but to file a complaint before the forum seeking an order to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, loss and sufferings and an amount of Rs.30,000/- as medical expenses incurred and costs of this proceedings.<br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint. The opposite party contended that there was <br /> <br /> - 3 -<br /> absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. It was averred that the contentions taken by the complainant are baseless, unfounded and utter falsehood. The allegations made by the complainant are with ulterior motives for unjust enrichment.<br /> <br /> The opposite party submits that on 09.06.2004, when the complainant was referred with complaints of amenorrhoea of 6 months duration, she was kept under observation and had done all the required investigations like ultrasonogram study etc. Since the pain was relieved, the complainant was allowed to go home on the same day. But on 13.06.2004, she had again contacted the opposite party complaining of abdominal pain and bleeding per vaginum. On examination she was having cord prolapse and the foetal heart sounds were absent. The complainant was informed of the fact and the need for expulsion of dead foetus was explained to her and her relatives. Even after the dead foetus was expelled the placenta remained adherent. It was case of Placenta percreta . Keeping the best interest of the patient, top gynocologists were requested to examine her and it was decided to do a laprotomy and if necessary a hysterectomy was fully explained to the complainant and her relatives. They were also given option to go to a higher centre if they wish so. But they finally decided that she be operated in opposite party hospital itself. On doing a laprotomy it was found that there were about 2 litres of blood in the peritoneal cavity, there was a rent in the fundus of the uteres from which there was oozing of blood. In order to save complainant's life a sub total hysterectomy was done, as there was no other option other than hysterectomy.<br /> <br /> Opposite party denied that during the visit of the complainant on 09.06.04, she was admitted and kept under observation. Since the ultra sonogram <br /> - 4 -<br /> study showed no abnormalities and therefore she was allowed to go home. <br /> <br /> Opposite party denied the averments made by the complainant in Para 1 and Para 2. opposite party in his version denied the allegation of the complainant that after surgery the complainant and relatives were informed that her uterus was removed. Opposite party averred that allegations made in Para 3 and 4 were false, baseless and have denied. Opposite party further submits that the compensation claimed under different heads were exaggerated without any basis. <br /> <br /> It is stated that there was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed an application to call for the case sheet from Madhavi Amma Hospital, Palakkad. Application was allowed and case sheet was produced before the forum.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Complainant was cross examined by opposite party counsel. <br /> <br /> The complainant in the cross examination stated that she was unaware of any procedure other than surgical method to remove the adherent placenta. It is also made clear that she has no complaint against the doctors who conducted hysterectomy on her.<br /> <br /> The opposite party filed proof affidavit. Evidence was closed. Heard the counsels appeared for the parties. We perused affidavits and relevant document on record.<br /> - 5 -<br /> From the case sheet it was very clear that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party hospital for chord collapse and IUD. It is noticed that the dead foetus expelled without much difficulty , But the placenta was not expelled and the adherent placenta could not be removed manually and hence removed the uterus by hysterectomy which was safest course in the above conditions. In her defence opposite party has placed reliance upon medical literature in support of her plea that there was no deficiency in her service or medical negligence on her part at all. The relevant medical literature as follows.<br /> <br /> The mannual of obstretries, thirteen addition by Robert Per cival FRCS(Eng) FRC OG the relevant portions are under.<br /> <br /> 2. Adherent Placenta<br /> a). Simple<br /> b) Placenta Accreta:-<br /> It would appear that that the safest proceedure when placenta accreta of any extend is encountered is to desist from protracted efforts at manual removal- because of the danger of intractable haemorrhage and perferation of the utreus and to move uterus by hysterectomy. Considering the above said record, there is no other option left other than doing histeratomy in order to save the life of the complainant. It is unfortunate that the hysterectomy has left her chances of becoming a mother a dream. But we do not find negligence or error on the part of the opposite party in the treatment. Moreover no sufficient grounds for deficiency in service and negligence are proved against the opposite party . With the above discussion the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> - 6 -<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of October, 2007.<br /> <br /> President in charge (SD) <br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> Forwarded/By Order<br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> <br />