Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/38/2015

Bibi Hajira D/o.Md Musheer Riyaz - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Nagamani Gynecologist W/o. Dr.Tyagaraj - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.C.M.Veeranna

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:01/04/2015

DISPOSED ON:13/09/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 38/2015

 

DATED: 13^th SEPTEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Bibi Hajira, D/o Md. Musheer Riyaz,   Since Minor, Reptd., by her Natural Guardian and Father Md.Musheer Riyaz, S/o Abdul Sattar Sab, R/o Ramdas Compound, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. M. Shivanna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1.  Dr.Nagamani, Gynecologist, W/o Dr. Tyagaraj, R/o 5th Cross, (East), JCR Extension, Chitradurga.   2. Dr. Ravikumar, Gynecologist, Chitradurga District Hospital, Chitradurga.   3. Dr. Tyagaraj, Physician,   Chitradurga District Hospital, Chitradurga.   4. Smt. Murigemma, Staff Nurse, Chitradurga District Hospital, Chitradurga.   5. Smt. Sharanamma, ANM Staff, Chitradurga District Hospital, Chitradurga.   6. District Surgeon, Chitradurga District Hospital, Chitradurga.   7. Dr. Sudha T.R, Gynecologist, Dept of OPG, S.S. Institute of Medical Science, NH-4, Bypass, Davanagere.   8. Dean, S.S. Institute of Medical Science, NH-4, Bypass, Davanagere.   (Rep by Sri.K.N. Vishwanath, Advocate for OP No.1 & 3, Sri. G.H. Sadashivappa, for OP No.2, M. Govindareddy, for OP No.4 and 5, Special P.P for OP No.6, OP No.7 ex-parte and Sri. H.V. Kumaraswamy, Advocate for OP No.8)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant/s u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to award compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- in favour of complainant against the OPs jointly and severally along with interest from the date of incident i.e., 10.11.2009 for their medical negligence and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, complainant is the daughter of Md.Musheer Riyaz and Smt. Asiya Banu.  It is submitted that, on 10.11.2009, the mother of complainant Smt. Asiya Banu went for medical checkup and taken treatment with OP No.1.  As per the advice of OP No.1, she got admitted to the OP No.6 Hospital i.e., Government Hospital, Chitradurga on the same day at about 4.30 PM.  On the same day at about 7.00 PM, she got labour pain. As such OP No.4 and 5 informed about the same to OP No.1 over phone, for that, OP No.1 replied as not to worry and she will be in the Hospital very soon.  But, she did not turned to the Hospital to attend and treat the patient.  The same has been explained to OP No.2, who is the duty Doctor but, OP No.2 is refused to attend the Asia Banu for baseless reason stating that, the patient took anti natal treatment from OP No.1.  Due to the heavy labour pain, OP No.4 and 5 took the patient to labour room for delivery and again OP No.4 and 5 informed the said situation to OP No.1 over phone.  The father of complainant also telephoned and informed the situation to OP No.1 but, OP No.1 refused to come to Hospital to attend and give treatment to the patient on the ground that, such labour pains are common and given instructions to OP No.4 and 5 through telephone.  It is further submitted that at about 8.15 PM, OP No.4 and 5 informed to the attenders of the patient including father of the complainant about the normal delivery of a female baby i.e., the complainant and the both mother and baby are fine and advised for breast feeding.  But, after 15 to 20 minutes OP No.4 and 5 informed about the slight bleeding from the Vegina of the patient Asiya Banu and immediately informed to the OP No.1, the duty doctor OP No.2 and also to call duty physician OP No.4 and asked the father of the complainant to arrange for blood as the Blood Bank of OP No.6 being locked.  The father of complainant arranged three bottles of blood from Vasavi Blood Bank, Chitradurga.  It is further submitted that, OP No.1 in spite of receiving information from OP No.4 and 5 and the father of the complainant having personally met her in the Clinic and appraised the health condition of the patient, she refused to come to Hospital to treat the patient by giving evasive reasons.  Thereafter, the father of complainant met OP No.2, who is also the Gynecologist who in turn spoke to the OP No.1 over phone and informed the father of the complainant that, OP No.1 will come soon to the Hospital and she will treat the patient and refused to treat the patient on the ground that, OP No.1 was the in-charge doctor of the patient.  Further the call duty physician OP No.3 in spite of receiving the information about the case of Asiya Banu from OP No.4 and 5, neither came to the Hospital nor responded to the subsequent mobile calls made by the OP No.4 and 5 and the father of complainant.  It is further submitted that, in order to keep the situation under control, with utmost negligence OP No.4 and 5 inserted cotton to screen the bleeding from the vagina in the absence of OP No.1 to 3 and waited for arrival of OP No.1 to 3.  As none of them turned down to attend the patient, OP No.4 and 5 pleaded with the father of the complainant for shifting of the patient to Higher Hospital for further treatment in the midnight by 12.00 AM.  Thereafter, the father of complainant tried to contact OP No.6, the District Surgeon for medical assistance but, OP No.6 neither available at the Hospital nor his mobile phone responded and the father of complainant requested the OP No.1, 2, 4 and 5 and other officials to send any medical attenders and to provide oxygen support to the patient for shifting the patient but, all of the refused to do so.  Therefore, the father of the complainant was forced to shift the patient without the required medical assistance and with a blank patient reference card to S.S. Institute of Medical Science, Davanagere in the intervening night of 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 at about 1.30 AM.  The Doctors in the said Hospital, in particular OP No.7 examined the patient and took history of a patient from the father of complainant and expressed the total dissatisfaction and medical negligence on the part of OP No.1 to 6 and later admitted the patient to ICU.  As per the advice of OP No.7 and other assisting Doctors of the said Hospital, arranged for all the medicines, 118 bottles of blood and deposited the amount to the Hospital as and when instructed to do so.  Finally, on 16.11.2009 at about 3.00 PM, the OP No.7 informed the father of the complainant about the death of the patient and the dead body was handed over for final and last rituals.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 10.10.2009, when the mother of the complainant admitted to the Government Hospital, Chitradurga for delivery, thereafter shifted to S.S. Institute of Medical Science, Davanagere and got treated as an in-patient and ultimately on 16.11.2009, the said Asiya Banu was declared dead.  The OP No.1 to 6 are residents of Chitradurga and the initial major cause of action for this complaint arose at Chitradurga, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and prayed to allow this complaint. 

Along with this complaint, the complainant has filed an application u/Sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P Act to condone the delay of 3 years 3 moths 3 days in filing this complaint supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay.  As per the reasons explained in the affidavit is believable under law, therefore, the delay is condoned.

3.      On service of notice on OPs, Sri. K.N. Vishwanath, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 & 3, Sri. G.H. Sadashivappa, for OP No.2, M. Govindareddy, for OP No.4 and 5, Special P.P for OP No.6 and Sri. H.V. Kumaraswamy, Advocate for OP No.8 and filed their respective versions. In spite of service of notice on OP No.7, remained absent, hence, placed ex-parte.

4.      OP No.1 and 3 filed version denying the entire allegations made in the complaint and the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.  It is further stated that, OP No.1 had seen the patient Asiya Banu 1-2 times prior to 10.11.2009 and properly advised during her pregnancy but, she was not taking regular treatment with OP No.1 and she used to take treatment with different Doctors and the prescriptions and medicines were different.  It is further submitted that, on 10.11.2009 she was admitted with the OP No.1 at about 4.45 PM when OPD working hours already closed by 3.20 PM.  OP No.1 subjected her to all checkups and satisfied with usual conditions of the patient and confirmed that, there will be normal delivery.  Again OP No.1 visited the Hospital and took usual rounds in the evening at about 7.30 PM and checked Asiya Banu and she was normal and there was no much labour pain for immediate delivery and she went to house.  It is further submitted that, only after delivery of Asiya Banu, OP No.1 was called from the Hospital at about 8.20 PM to checkup about post-delivery bleeding.  Immediately OP No.1 went to the Hospital by about 8.30 PM itself and checked the patient and confirmed that there was a bleeding because of “postpartum hemorrhage” (PPH) was developed in uterus i.e., it had become much smooth which normally shall be little hard and there was no normal contract and retract of the uterus and given all treatments at intervals till 11.30 PM by noting the same in the case sheet.  Normally there shall be natural contract and retract of the uterus after the normal delivery, but such uterus action was not there in case of Asiya Banu, thus there was slight bleeding.  OP No.1 advised the father of the complainant and relatives that, it takes at least 2-3 days time to gain normality of the smoothened uterus to become little hard and to stop such slight bleeding.  But, they were not in a position to here OP No.1 and expressed that they intended to take the patient to S.S. Institute at Davanagere and requested to discharge her. So, she was discharged at about 11-30 PM on the same day.  It is further submitted that, after discharge of the patient, OP No.1 told the father of complainant that she will also accompany with them in the Ambulance but, they expressed that, any brother may be sent with necessary medical equipments.  Hence, OP No.1 sent a Brother by name Bharath with them with oxygen, drip, first aid materials etc.  As it was late on that day to send the patient to Davanagere, OP No.3 being husband of OP No.1 came to Hospital to take OP No.1 to house, who had just returned from Bangalore, as he was on leave on that day.  It is further submitted that, in case of normal delivery, about 10% of the cases there will be such PPH naturally, depending upon the body conditions and withstanding capacity of the uterus and the same may be brought to normal after due observations of the treatment given, after some hours after the delivery, with some exceptions to remove the uterus itself.  It is further submitted that, there was no time and calm atmosphere at all for the OP No.1 to keep the patient under observations due to emotional breakdowns from the relatives of the patient.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.      OP No.2 filed version denied the entire allegations made in the complaint. It is further submitted that, the service rendered by OP No.4 was in conformity with treatment protocols followed anywhere in the world.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or negligence on his part and this OP is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

6.      OP No.4 filed version denying the averments made in the complaint.  It is submitted that, she was working as Staff Nurse in OP No.6 Hospital on 10.11.2009 from 4.00 PM to 8.00 PM.  On that, the patient Asiya Banu was admitted to OP No.6 Hospital by OP No.1 for delivery.  As per the advice instructions of the Doctors, OP No.4 and 5 got admitted the patient to the delivery ward and had made preparations for delivery as per the procedure and done formal formalities as part prepared, soap water enima was given and provide bed and needful things to the patient and were in constant observation of the condition of patient.  All of a sudden after 7.45 PM delivery pain appeared to the patient and immediately the same was informed to the OP No.1 by the OP No.4.  The pain was increased and normal delivery took place within a span of half an hour by giving birth to female baby.  OP No.4 and 5 carefully and with utmost care and caution as prudent men attended the delivery of the patient Asiya Banu.  After the delivery there was PPH so that Oxytocin injection was given to avoid slight bleeding and episiotomy wound sutured and same is noted in the case sheet under delivery note.  OP No.1 visited and examined the condition and took care of the patient.  OP No.4 and 5 administered the medicine as prescribed by the Doctor and one unit of blood was given to the patient.  The doctors have taken care of the patient and lastly referred to the Higher Hospital.  OP No.4 and 5 are the skilled, qualified and trained persons having experience in the area of delivrery of babies, they are eligible to conduct normal deliveries.  OP No.4 with care utmost care and caution discharged her duty during the admission for delivery and there is no deficiency in service and negligence on her part.      

7.      OP No.5 filed version denying the averments made in the complaint.  It is submitted that, she was working as Female Health Assistant in OP No.6 Hospital on 10.11.2009 from 4.00 PM to 8.00 PM.  On that, the patient Asiya Banu was admitted to OP No.6 Hospital by OP No.1 for delivery.  As per the advice instructions of the Doctors, OP No.4 and 5 got admitted the patient to the delivery ward and had made preparations for delivery as per the procedure and done formal formalities as part prepared, soap water enima was given and provide bed and needful things to the patient and were in constant observation of the condition of patient.  All of a sudden after 7.45 PM delivery pain appeared to the patient and immediately the same was informed to the OP No.1 by the OP No.4.  The pain was increased and normal delivery took place within a span of half an hour by giving birth to female baby.  OP No.4 and 5 carefully and with utmost care and caution as prudent men attended the delivery of the patient Asiya Banu.  After the delivery there was PPH so that Oxytocin injection was given to avoid slight bleeding and episiotomy wound sutured and same is noted in the case sheet under delivery note.  OP No.1 visited and examined the condition and took care of the patient.  OP No.4 and 5 administered the medicine as prescribed by the Doctor and one unit of blood was given to the patient.  The doctors have taken care of the patient and lastly referred to the Higher Hospital.  OP No.4 and 5 are the skilled, qualified and trained persons having experience in the area of delivery of babies, they are eligible to conduct normal deliveries.  OP No.5 with care utmost care and caution discharged her duty during the admission for delivery and there is no deficiency in service and negligence on her part.

8.      OP No.6 filed version stating that, the mother of complainant Asiya Banu took medical treatment and medication as per the advice of OP No.1 and treated by OP No.1 in her clinic situated at Gopalapura, Chitradurga and also at District Hospital, Chitradurga is not known to OP No.6 and the same is denied as false.  The fact that, on 10.11.2009, said Asiya Banu felt pain in her abdomen and took her to the OP No.1 for medical checkup and treatment.  OP No.1 on examination explained that, both the mother and baby are fine and good, nothing to worry, as such a normal delivery will follow and got admitted the said Asiya Banu as an inpatient in OP No.6 Hospital and at about 4.30 PM is not known to this OP.  On the same day at about 7.00 PM, she got labour pain and as such the OP No.4 and 5 informed the same to OP No.1 through phone.  OP No.1 did not turned towards OP No.6 Hospital attend and treat the patient is not known to this OP.  It is not known to this OP that, on the intervening night of 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 at about 1.30 AM, the complainant’s father took the patient to OP No.8 Hospital, where OP No.7 examined the patient and expressed total dissatisfaction and medical negligence on the part of OP No.1 to 6 and later admitted the patient to ICU.  The fact that, as per the advice of the OP No.7 and other assisting doctors of the said Hospital arranged for all the medicines, 118 bottles of blood and deposited the amount at the hospital as and when instructed to do so and finally on 16.11.2009 at about 3.00 PM, OP No.7 informed the complainant’s father that, the patient was no more and she was dead is not known to this OP.  It is false to state that, on account of gross medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the said Asiya Banu was died.  It is false to state that, he being the District Surgeon of the Government Hospital, Chitradurga, in-charge of the said Hospital failed to provide the required minimum medical care and treatment to the patient at Chitradurga and further failed to provide required minimum medical care and treatment during shifting of the patient which leads to death of patient and further allowed the OP No.1 and 3 to tamper the case sheet pertaining to the patient for the purpose of screening the medical negligence against OP No.1 to 5.  It is submitted that, OP No.6 is the District Surgeon, he has to monitor all the wings of his Hospital.  He has not treated the patient and only the duty Doctor has treated her.  Hence, there is no medical negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.6 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.      OP No.8 filed version stating that, the complaint is not with respect to any deficiency in service nor for any unfair trade practice, it is only with a view to tarnish the reputation of the Hospital and the same is filed to extract the monitory consideration from the Hospital.  The complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation as the cause of action for this complaint arose on 10.10.2009 as the complainant’s mother got treated by OP No.1 and admitted to Government Hospital, Chitradurga as an inpatient as per the advise of OP No.1 and delivered the complainant and thereafter shifted to S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences, Davanagere and got treated as an inpatient and ultimately on 16.11.2009 the patient was declared as dead, which shows that the cause of action arose on 10.10.2009 and on 16.11.2009, but the complaint is filed on 09.03.2015 after lapse of two years.  Therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation.  It is further submitted that, nowhere in the complaint and any allegations of negligence or deficiency in service made against OP No.8.  The allegations made in para 2 to 15 are made against OP No.1 to 7.  The allegations made in para 16 of the complaint that, OP No.8 being the Dean of S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences, Davanagere who is incharge of the said Hospital and Supervision failed to provide the required medical care and treatment to the deceased Asiya Banu are all denied as false. It is further submitted that, OP No.8 has treated the patient by line of treatment i.e., universally accepted and the treatment rendered by OP No.8 Hospital was in conformity with treatment protocols followed anywhere in the world.  Therefore, OP No.8 cannot be held for guilty of deficiency in service if the Hospital follows the practices and procedures prescribed by the Standard Medical Text Books, in the instant case there is no deviation from the established line of treatment rendered to the patient.  The allegations made in para 17 and 18 are denied as false and it is mere allegations of theory of “ifs and buts” containing hypothetical circumstances.  Therefore, OP No.8 is not liable to pay any compensation.  The averments made in para 23 that, the complainant being minor, aged about 5 years and as such the limitation provided to file the complaint before this Forum is legally extended till attains majority is false and there is no such provision of law and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

10.    One Sri. Mohammed Musheer Riyaz the natural guardian/father of Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-29 were got marked.  OP No.1, Dr. Nagamani has examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence, OP No.2, Dr. Ravikumar examined as DW-2 by filing affidavit evidence, OP No.4, Smt. D. Murigemma examined as DW-3 by filing affidavit evidence, OP No.5, Smt. Sharanamma examined as DW-4 by filing affidavit evidence, OP No.6, Dr. K. Jagadeesh, District Surgeon examined as DW-5, OP No.8, Dr. N.K. Kalappanavar examined as DW-6 by filing affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked.  

11.    Arguments heard.

12.    Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed medical negligence and deficiency of service in treating the deceased Asiya Banu and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

              (2) What order?

          13.    Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

14.    It is the case of the complainant that, on 10.11.2009, the mother of complainant Smt. Asiya Banu went for medical checkup and taken treatment with OP No.1.  As per the advice of OP No.1, she got admitted to the OP No.6 Hospital on the same day at about 4.30 PM.  On the same day at about 7.00 PM, she got labour pain. As such OP No.4 and 5 informed about the same to OP No.1 over phone, for that, OP No.1 replied as not to worry and she will be in the Hospital very soon.  But, she did not turned to the Hospital to attend and treat the patient.  The same has been explained to OP No.2, the duty Doctor but, OP No.2 is refused to attend Asia Banu for baseless reason stating that, the patient took anti natal treatment from OP No.1.  Due to the heavy labour pain, OP No.4 and 5 took the patient to labour room for delivery and informed the said situation to OP No.1 over phone.  The father of complainant also telephoned and informed the situation to OP No.1 but, OP No.1 refused to come to Hospital to attend and give treatment to the patient on the ground that, such labour pains are common and given instructions to OP No.4 and 5 through telephone.  At about 8.15 PM, OP No.4 and 5 informed to the attenders of the patient including father of the complainant about the normal delivery of a female baby i.e., the complainant and the both mother and baby are fine and advised for breast feeding.  But, after 15 to 20 minutes OP No.4 and 5 informed about the slight bleeding from the Vegina of the patient Asiya Banu and immediately informed to the OP No.1, the duty doctor OP No.2 and also to call duty physician OP No.4 and asked the father of the complainant to arrange for blood as the Blood Bank of OP No.6 being locked.  The father of complainant arranged three bottles of blood from Vasavi Blood Bank, Chitradurga.  OP No.1 in spite of receiving information from OP No.4 and 5 and the father of the complainant having personally met OP No.1 and appraised the health condition of the patient.  But, she refused to come to Hospital to treat the patient.  The father of the complainant met OP No.2, who is also the Gynecologist who in turn spoke to the OP No.1 over phone and informed the father of the complainant that, OP No.1 will come soon to the Hospital and she will treat the patient and refused to treat the patient on the ground that, OP No.1 was the in-charge doctor of the patient.  The OP No.3 in spite of receiving the information about the case of Asiya Banu from OP No.4 and 5, neither came to the Hospital nor responded to the subsequent mobile calls made by the OP No.4 and 5 and the father of complainant.  As none of them turned down to attend the patient, OP No.4 and 5 pleaded with the father of the complainant for shifting of the patient to Higher Hospital for further treatment in the midnight by 12.00 AM.  The father of complainant tried to contact OP No.6, the District Surgeon for medical assistance but, OP No.6 neither available at the Hospital nor with mobile phone.  The father of complainant requested the OP No.1, 2, 4 and 5 and other officials to send any medical attenders and to provide oxygen support to the patient for shifting the patient but, all of the refused to do so.  The father of the complainant was forced to shift the patient without the required medical assistance and with a blank patient reference card to S.S. Institute of Medical Science, Davanagere in the intervening night of 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 at about 1.30 AM.  The Doctors in the said Hospital, in particular OP No.7 examined the patient and admitted the patient to ICU.  As per the advice of OP No.7 and other assisting Doctors of the said Hospital, arranged for all the medicines, 118 bottles of blood.  On 16.11.2009 at about 3.00 PM, the OP No.7 informed the father of the complainant about the death of the patient and the dead body was handed over for final and last rituals.

  15.  Complainant in support of her contention, one Sri. Mohammed Musheer Riyaz, her natural father of complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like ultra-scanning report dated 07.047.2009 is marked as Ex.A-1, prescription dated 25.10.2009 is marked as Ex.A-2, receipts dated 10.11.2009 and 11.10.2009 are  marked as Ex.A-3 to 5, blood replacement vouchers dated 11.11.2009 are marked as Ex.A-6 and 7, referral card from District Hospital, Chitradurga marked as Ex.A-8, letter dated 30.01.2010 issued by the District Surgeon, Chitradurga marked as Ex.A-9, outpatient slip marked as Ex.A-10, Case sheet of General Hospital, Chitradurga marked as Ex.A-11, case summary dated 18.11.2009 from S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere marked as Ex.A-12, certificate dated 20.11.2009 issued by S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere marked as Ex.A-13, Admission Register extract of S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere marked as Ex.A-14, details of blood components issued by S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere marked as Ex.A-15, information given by the S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere marked as Ex.A-16, office copy of the legal notice dated 03.05.2013 marked as Ex.A-17, postal receipts and served acknowledgements marked as Ex.A-18 and 19, returned postal cover with acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-20 and 21, reply notice dated 22.05.2013 marked as Ex.A-22, letter dated 01.02.2016 written by Dr. Sudha. T.R, OP No.7 to this Forum marked as Ex.A-23, letter dated 08.09.2016 issued by this Forum marked as Ex.A-24, letter dated 26.10.2016 marked as Ex.A-25, letter dated 24.12.2016 marked as Ex.A-26 and letter dated 30.01.2017 send by the Resident Medical Officer, SSIMS and RC, Davanagere along with admission record of Asiya Banu marked as Ex.A-27, Death certificate of Asiya Banu marked as Ex.A-28 and Birth Certificate of baby of Asiya Banu marked as    Ex.A-29.    

16.    On the other hand, it is argued by the advocate for OP No.1 and 3 that, OP No.1 had seen the patient Asiya Banu 1-2 times prior to 10.11.2009 and properly advised during her pregnancy.  But, she was not taking regular treatment with OP No.1 and used to take treatment with different Doctors and the prescriptions and medicines were different.  On 10.11.2009 she was admitted with the OP No.1 at about 4.45 PM when OPD working hours already closed by 3.20 PM and subjected her to all checkups and satisfied with usual conditions of the patient and confirmed that, there will be normal delivery.  Again OP No.1 visited the Hospital and took usual rounds in the evening at about 7.30 PM and checked Asiya Banu and she was normal and there was no much labour pain for immediate delivery and she went to house.  Only after delivery of Asiya Banu, OP No.1 was called from the Hospital at about 8.20 PM to checkup about post-delivery bleeding.  OP No.1 went to the Hospital by about 8.30 PM itself and checked the patient and confirmed that there was a bleeding because of “postpartum hemorrhage” (PPH) was developed in uterus i.e., it had become much smooth which normally shall be little hard and there was no normal contract and retract of the uterus and given all treatments at intervals till 11.30 PM by noting the same in the case sheet.  Normally there shall be natural contract and retract of the uterus after the normal delivery, but such uterus action was not there in case of Asiya Banu, thus there was slight bleeding.  OP No.1 advised the father of the complainant and relatives that, it takes at least 2-3 days time to gain normality of the smoothened uterus to become little hard and to stop such slight bleeding.  But, they were not in a position to here OP No.1 and expressed that they intended to take the patient to S.S. Institute at Davanagere and requested to discharge her.  So, she was discharged at about 11-30 PM on the same day.  After discharge of the patient, OP No.1 told the father of complainant that she will also accompany with them in the Ambulance but, they expressed that, any brother may be sent with necessary medical equipments.  Hence, OP No.1 sent a brother by name Bharath with them with oxygen, drip, first aid materials etc.  In case of normal delivery, about 10% of the cases there will be such PPH naturally, depending upon the body conditions and withstanding capacity of the uterus and the same may be brought to normal after due observations of the treatment given, after some hours after the delivery, with some exceptions to remove the uterus itself.

17.    OP No.2 argued and denied the entire allegations made in the complaint and submitted that, there is no deficiency of service or negligence on his part and he is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant.

18.    Advocate for OP No.4 and 5 argued that, they were working as Staff Nurse and Female Health Assistant respectively in OP No.6 Hospital on 10.11.2009 from 4.00 PM to 8.00 PM.  On that day, the patient Asiya Banu was admitted to Hospital.  As per the advice instructions of the Doctors, OP No.4 and 5 got admitted the patient to the delivery ward and had made preparations for delivery as per the procedure and done formal formalities and were in constant observation of the condition of the patient.  All of a sudden after 7.45 PM delivery pain appeared to the patient and immediately the same was informed to the OP No.1 by the OP No.4.  The pain was increased and normal delivery took place within a span of half an hour by giving birth to female baby.  OP No.4 and 5 carefully and with utmost care and caution as prudent men attended the delivery of the patient.  After the delivery there was PPH so that Oxytocin injection was given to avoid slight bleeding and episiotomy wound sutured and same is noted in the case sheet under delivery note.  OP No.1 visited and examined the condition and took care of the patient.  OP No.4 and 5 administered the medicine as prescribed by the Doctor and one unit of blood was given to the patient.  The doctors have taken care of the patient and lastly referred to the Higher Hospital.  They are the skilled, qualified and trained persons having experience in the area of delivery of babies, they are eligible to conduct normal deliveries.  There is no deficiency in service and negligence on her part.     

19.    Advocate for OP No.6 argued that, the mother of complainant Smt. Asiya Banu took medical treatment and medication as per the advice of OP No.1 and treated by OP No.1 in her clinic situated at Gopalapura, Chitradurga and also at District Hospital, Chitradurga is not known to OP No.6.  On 10.11.2009, said Asiya Banu felt pain in her abdomen and took her to the OP No.1 for medical checkup and treatment.  OP No.1 on examination explained that, both the mother and baby are fine and good, nothing to worry, as such a normal delivery will follow and got admitted the said Asiya Banu as an inpatient to the Hospital and at about 4.30 PM is not known to this OP.  It is further argued that, on the same day at about 7.00 PM, she got labour pain and as such the OP No.4 and 5 informed the same to OP No.1 through phone.  OP No.1 did not turned towards Hospital attend and treat the patient is not known to this OP.  It is not known to this OP that, on the intervening night of 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 at about 1.30 AM, the complainant’s father took the patient to OP No.8 Hospital, where OP No.7 examined the patient and expressed total dissatisfaction and medical negligence and later admitted the patient to ICU.  As per the advice of the OP No.7 and other assisting doctors of the said Hospital arranged for all the medicines, 118 bottles of blood and deposited the amount at the hospital as and when instructed to do so and finally on 16.11.2009 at about 3.00 PM, OP No.7 informed the complainant’s father that, the patient was no more and she was dead is not known to this OP.  On account of gross medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the said Asiya Banu was died is denied as false.  Being the District Surgeon of the Government Hospital, Chitradurga, in-charge of the said Hospital failed to provide the required minimum medical care and treatment to the patient at Chitradurga and further failed to provide required minimum medical care and treatment during shifting of the patient which leads to death of patient and further allowed the OP No.1 and 3 to tamper the case sheet pertaining to the patient for the purpose of screening the medical negligence against OP No.1 to 5 is denied as false. 

20.    Advocate for OP No.8 argued that, the complaint is not with respect to any deficiency in service nor for any unfair trade practice, it is only with a view to tarnish the reputation of the Hospital and the same is filed to extract the monitory consideration from the Hospital.  It is further argued that, being the Dean of S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences, Davanagere who is incharge of the said Hospital and Supervision failed to provide the required medical care and treatment to the deceased Asiya Banu are all denied as false. It is further argued that, OP No.8 has treated the patient by line of treatment i.e., universally accepted and the treatment rendered by OP No.8 Hospital was in conformity with treatment protocols followed anywhere in the world.  Therefore, OP No.8 cannot be held for guilty of deficiency in service. 

21.   On hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, as per the advise of OP No.1 the mother of the complainant Asiya Banu got admitted to the District Government Hospital, Chitradurga for delivery on 10.11.2009 at about 4-30 PM as an inpatient as per Ex.A-10.  Thereafter, on the same day she gave birth to a female baby at about 8.15 PM.  After delivery, OP No.4 and 5 have intimated the same to the relatives of the complainant that, said Asiya Banu gave birth to a female baby and both mother and baby are good.  After lapse of 15 minutes, there is a slight bleeding from the vegina of the patient.  OP No.4 and 5 have informed the same to OP No.1 Dr. Nagamani, the duty doctor OP No.2 Dr. Ravikumar, Gynecologist and also to the OP No.3 call duty physician Dr.Tygaraj and OP No.6 District Surgeon.  But, OP No.1 to 3 in spite of receiving the information from OP No.4 and 5 did not turn up and treated the patient Smt. Asiya Banu.  By that time, maximum blood from the body of Smt. Asiya Banu was lost.  Before that, OP No.4 and 5 were tried to control the blood but, they have not having medical knowledge for themselves for blood transfusion and waited for arrival of OP No.3, who is the physician till 12-00 night.  As Ex.A-10, the case sheet of Asiya Banu, OP No.4 and 5 have treated the patient up to delivery and they have reported the same in writing in the case sheet.  The OP No.1 visited the Hospital at 4-45 PM on 10.11.2009 and saw the case sheet.  Immediately, she has written in the case sheet at page No.5 to 7 with regard to the treatment given to the patient.  But, it is observed by this Forum in Ex.A-10 at page No.4, the OP No.4 and 5 have written the case sheet in between 4-15 PM to 12-00 PM about the treatment given to the patient.  But in the case sheet at page No. 5 to 7 shows that, on 10.11.2009 in between 8-30 PM to 12-00 PM, OP No.1 has given treatment to the patient.  But as per Ex.A-10, OP No.4 and 5 have written in the case sheet on the same day at the same time, which clearly shows that, as per version, affidavit filed by OP No.4 and 5, they have given treatment to the patient at 8-30 PM to 12-00 PM and further they have said that, they called OP No.1 over telephone.  It clearly shows that, Ex.A-10 at page No.5 to 7 is created and concocted document by the OP No.1 to escaping the clutches from the law.  Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.  The contention taken by the complainant and OP No.4 and 5 that, though the OP No.1 was advised the patient to the Hospital for delivery she did not turn up to the hospital to treat the patient till the patient discharged from the Hospital.  It is the duty of the OP No.1 to come to Hospital to see the patient as and when the OP No.4 and 5 telephoned to her.  OP No.2, the duty Doctor, who is also the Gynecologist though present in the Hospital, OP No.4 and 5 have intimated him about the slight bleeding from the vegina of the patient and he did not come and see the patient and never written a single word in the Ex.A-10 i.e., case sheet about giving the treatment to the patient.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the OP No.2 has committed a dereliction of duty in giving the treatment being a Government Duty Doctor.    Whatever the contention taken by the OP No.1 and 2 in their version, affidavit and written argument about the treatment given by them to the patient, in support of their contention they have not produced any piece of papers to prove their case.  Therefore, the contention taken by OP No.1 and 2 are not believable.  As per the contention taken by the complainant in the complaint at para 12, OP No.3 being physician of the OP No.6, being the call duty on the day of admission of the patient to the Hospital for labour pain and further taken a contention that, OP No.3 was colluded with OP No.1 for fabricating and manipulating the case sheet.  But, the OP No.3 is the physician in the Hospital, his presence was not required at that time as there is no disease to come and see the patient by the OP No.3.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3.  OP No.4 and 5 are only the Staff Nurses, they have done their duty as per the advise of the Doctors.  So, in this case also, they have given treatment to the patient as per the advise of the OP No.1.  Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of OP No.4 and 5.  OP No.6 is the District Surgeon, he has to look after the entire management in the Hospital.  So, there is no negligence on the part of OP No.7.  As per the case sheet, the patient was referred to the higher hospital for further treatment.  Then the patient was admitted to the S.S. Institute of Medical Science, Davanagere.  By that time, so many Doctors have seen the patient.  One Dr. Sudha T.R, Gynecologist, of S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences, Davanagere, has treated her by collecting 118 bottles of blood.  But, she never stated anywhere in the case sheet why they has collected that much of bottles of blood.  Moreover, she never appear before this Forum and stated why she has collected that much bottles of blood and never stated anywhere in the case sheet about the disease.  The OP No.7 has collected nearly 118 bottles of blood but, she never find out and control the bleeding of the blood from the vegina as per the decisions reported in IV 2009 CPJ 226 (NC) in the case of Kanubai S. Patil (Dr) Vs. Jethabai Jeevabai Solanki and another.  The same is quite applicable to the present case on hand.  Therefore, the allegations made against the OP No.7 and 8 by the complainant in her complainant is believable at this stage.  Hence, OP No.7 and 8 have held liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  The decisions given by the complainant is supported to the facts of the case on hand.  As per the decision reported in IV (2010) CPJ 112 (NC) in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Ayesha Begam, the Doctors working under the Government Hospitals are also comes under the C.P. Act.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.                  

   22.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The application filed u/Sec.24(A)(2) of the C.P. Act is hereby allowed by condoning the delay.

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is ordered that, the OP No.7 and 8 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

The complaint filed as against OP No.3 to 6 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1, 2, 7 and 8 are hereby directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1, 2, 7 and 8 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 13/09/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainants:

PW-1:  Sri.Md. Musheer riyaz by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

DW-2:- OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-3:- OP No.3 by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-4:- OP No.4 by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-5:- OP No.5 by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-6:- OP No.6 by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-8:- OP No.8 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Ultra-scanning report dated 07.047.2009
02	Ex-A-2:-	Prescription dated 25.10.2009
03	Ex-A-3 to 5:-	Receipts dated 10.11.2009 and 11.10.2009
04	Ex-A-6 & 7:-	Blood replacement vouchers dated 11.11.2009
05	Ex.A-8:-	Referral card from District Hospital, Chitradurga
06	Ex.A-9:-	Letter dated 30.01.2010 issued by the District Surgeon, Chitradurga
07	Ex.A-10:-	Outpatient slip
08	Ex.A-11:-	Case sheet of General Hospital, Chitradurga
09	Ex.A-12:-	Case summary dated 18.11.2009 from S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere
10	Ex.A-13:-	Certificate dated 20.11.2009 issued by S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere
11	Ex.A-14:-	Admission Register extract of S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere
12	Ex.A-15:-	Details of blood components issued by S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere
13	Ex.A-16:-	Information given by the S.S. Institute Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere
14	Ex.A-17:-	Office copy of the legal notice dated 03.05.2013
15	Ex.A-18 & 19:-	Potal receipts and served acknowledgements
16	Ex.A-20 & 21:-	Returned postal cover with acknowledgement
17	Ex.A-22:-	Reply notice dated 22.05.2013
18	Ex.A-23:-	Letter dated 01.02.2016 written by Dr. Sudha. T.R
19	Ex.A-24:-	Letter dated 08.09.2016 issued by this Forum
20	Ex.A-25:-	Letter dated 26.10.2016
21	Ex.A-26:-	Letter dated 24.12.2016
22	Ex.A-27:-	Letter dated 30.01.2017 send by the Resident Medical Officer, SSIMS and RC, Davanagere along with admission record of Asiya Banu
23	Ex.A-28:-	Death certificate of Asiya Banu
24	Ex.A-29	Birth Certificate of baby of Asiya Banu

 

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**