Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

80/2007

Anuradha,W/o.Ramesh kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Nasreen ahmed,director,N,R.Medical home private ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Mre.G.Munendran

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                                Complaint presented on  : 15.06.2006

                                                                       Order pronounced on  01.04.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE  01^st  DAY OF APRIL 2016

 

C.C.NO.80/2007

 

 

Anuradha,

W/O. Ramesh Kumar,

No.14, Plot No.3, Yakob Garden Lane,

Pattalam, Chennai – 600 012.

 

                                                                                       ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.Dr.Nasreen Ahmed, Director, N.R.Medical Home Private Ltd., No.1, Binny Colony, Perambur Barracks Road, Chennai – 600 012.   2.Kanchi Kamakoti Child Trust Hospital, Represented by its Managing Trustee, 12-A Nageswara Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.   Impleaded as 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties as per order Passed by this Hon’ble Forum In C.M.P.No.134/2010 vide Order dated: 10.08.2010         3.Chief Consultant, Department of Neo-Natal Care, Kanchi Kamakoti Child Trust Hospital, 12, A, Nageswara Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 01.03.2007

Counsel for Complainant                      :G.Munendran

Counsel for  1^st  Opposite party               : M/S. S.L.Sudarsanam

 

Counsel for 2^nd  & 3^rd Opposite Party           :  M/S. T.K. Ravikumar       

 

                  

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant states that she was admitted into the 1^st Opposite Party Hospital on 09.01.2005 at 12.00 p.m. midnight for delivery of her child. From the time of admission the 1^st Opposite Party had not given adequate and proper care to the Complainant. However she gave birth to a male child on 10.01.2005 at morning 8 o’clock as a normal delivery. Even after the delivery the 1^st Opposite Party’s hospital had failed to render adequate care and proper treatment to the new born baby of the Complainant and  as well as to the Complainant. The Complainant’s delivery was attended by the 1^st Opposite Party hospital Doctor Mrs. Nasreen Ahmed.  Suddenly to the shock of the Complainant that lady Doctor informed to the Complainant that the new born baby is serious so we are keeping the baby in an incubator. The 1^st Opposite Party had not allowed even the Complainant and her relatives to see the baby and also no Doctors and no sisters had attended the new born while it was at the incubator. While the Complainant and her father questioned about it, the 1^st Opposite Party’s Doctors and Nurses had replied that “we know” but no attention was given to the child and the Complainant was also not attended by anyone. So the Complainant’s stomach became inflated which caused heavy and unbearable pain to the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that finally without giving proper care and treatment to the infant for nearly 2 days, the 1^st Opposite Party had told that the infant became very serious, it is very difficult to manage at her hospital and sent the baby to the Child Trust Hospital on 11.01.2005 at 6 p.m. They stated that minimum expenses of Rs.7,000/- per day will be incurred. However, the child trust hospital had not admitted the child saying the following reasons.

1. Delayed arrival and
2. The health condition of New Born is very critical

Stage and they refused to admit the baby.

Immediately the child was taken to Egmore  Children Hospital.  The Doctors at Children Hospital told that if the baby was brought here two days earlier it would have been saved. However they admitted the child and gave treatment for 2 days thereafter they also advised to take the  baby to some other better specialty hospitals since they have lack of equipments and medicine facility. Then the new born baby was taken to Dr.Mehtha’s Hospital Pvt.Ltd., Chetpet for better treatment, after 10 days of right care and good treatment, the infant was saved. On 24.01.2005 the infant was discharged. Due to the Opposite Parties deficient service, the Complainant and the new born baby suffered a lot and also incurred a heavy expenses of about Rs.80,000/-. The Opposite Parties deficient services caused huge pain, sufferings and mental agony, still the Complainant is suffering by pain at her stomach and taking treatment with huge expenses. She sent legal notice on 16.03.2005 alleging all facts and said notice was acknowledged by the 1^st Opposite Party and replied for the legal notice on 20.03.2005 and subsequently on 18.04.2005 The reply of the first Opposite Party are evasive and vague and it was replied in an unacquntable nature a formal refusal was stated in the reply notice dated 18.04.2005 and no compensation was given to the Complainant.  Therefore the Complainant is constrained to file this petition to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand) as compensation towards the extra medical expenses incurred by the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss, mental agony, pain and sufferings to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and cost of the proceedings.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant got admitted in the 1^st Opposite Party hospital at 2.50a.m on 10.01.2005. The chief consultant was available at the early hours throughout her delivery. The Complainant obtained consent form for delivery, duly signed by the Complainant and her husband.  The Complainant delivered a male child at about 8.15 a.m on 10.01.2005. The child was weighing about 3kgs.  At the time of delivery thick Meconium stained liquor seen. The baby was wiped and dried well. Fetal heart maintained at about 144/mt. Bulb suctioning was done. Dr.Nasreen Ahmed noticed respiratory distress at about 8.17a.m and the child was shifted to Neonatal ward for further management and the child was referred to Dr.K.Satish Pediatrician. The Complainant was also given necessary care and treatment at regular intervals. Dr.K.Satish saw the baby in the morning at 8.45 a.m on 10.01.2005 and he observed  as follows:

Page 4 (1)

BABY              Cry        

                         Activity                        Good

RS: bil air entry (+)                       RR:58/minute

Mild Respiratory Distress

Tracheal toilet (suctioning) provided. Not much Meconium seen.

Baby cried after good suction and stimulation.

Stomach wash given at birth.

CVS :S1, S2(+)          Faint Systolic Mummur (+) HR =154/Minute

P/A   :SOFTNAD      CNS   :   AF                   NNR(+)

No Obvious ext. cong Anomalies Clinically.

   Term Child/AGA/Mala ND       1. Meconium Aspiration at Birth

                                                      2. Mild Respiratory Distress since birth

Dr.K.Satish advised to continue the Oxygen flow, Intra Venous Fluids, with antibiotic coverage to avoid infection to watch for:

1.Cyanosis                           1.To maintain RR/HR U /o chart

2. RR/tachypnea                 2. Risk explained regarding

                                                Respiratory distress

          3. Vomitting

The hospital has obtained dangerously ill list (DIL) consent form from the parents of the child. The child was progressing well and respiratory distress decreased at 7.p.m on 10.01.2005. Next day morning there was improvement of the child and Dr.K.Satish examined the baby and suggested to continue the same line of treatment.  During afternoon hours the respiratory distress has not settled as expected and the doctor suggested that the baby need mechanical ventilator and further treatment. The same was explained to the parents of the child and the baby may be shifted to children hospital, Egmore or Kanchi Kamakoti Child Trust Hospital according to their financial ability. Dr.K.Satish also gave referral letter addressed to CMO around 2.30.p.m. The baby was shifted from the 1^st Opposite Party hospital at 5.30.p.m on 11.01.2005.  Dr.K.Satish enquired the Registrar of the Child Trust Hospital to find out the condition of the baby. He had been given to understand that the baby reported to the casualty of Child Trust Hospital and did not get admitted due financial constraints and left the said hospital. It is pertinent to mention that the hospital expenses of the 1^st Opposite Party was not paid by the Complainant. On 12.01.2005 the Complainant’s husband came to the 1^st Opposite Party hospital to discharge the mother to feed the baby and even that time the expenses was not paid. The Children hospital Egmore is one of the best hospitals in the country for babies. The other allegations made in the Complaint against the 1^st Opposite Party hospital are denied as baseless.  The 1^st Opposite Party Dr. Nasreen Ahmed has not committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant at the time of delivery of the child and on the other hand she had given best treatment to her and the child and therefore this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint. 

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd & 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is not the case of the Complainant that there is any service for consideration nor any Deficiency in Service and it is not alleged in the Complaint that he paid for the services if any rendered by the 2 & 3^rd Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.2 & 3 is not aware of the allegations and the averments in para 1 to 4 of the Complaint as it refers to the happenings at the hands of the first Opposite Party. The Complainant has not established negligence on the part of the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party and they have not referred the child to the  Child Trust Hospital. The Complainant was informed before hand as to the possible expenses likely to be incurred, since the Complainant should not be taken by surprise and the Complainant was not denied of admission of the child as alleged. The Opposite Party never informed the Complainant regarding late arrival and the condition of the baby critical. The Complainant is not a Consumer and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?

          2. Whether the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service?

          3. Whether the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in             

               Service?

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

5. POINT:1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant after conceived, she consulted the Dr.Nasreen Ahmed periodically and for delivery she admitted herself in the 1^st Opposite Party hospital during night hours of 09.01.2005/10.01.2005 and Dr.Nasreen Ahemd attended her for delivery and the Complainant delivered a male child on 10.01.2005 at about 8.10a.m and at the time of delivery Dr.Nasreen Ahmed and a nurse was present and after delivery of the child Dr.Nasreen Ahmed  informed  Dr.K.Satish, pediatrician to attend the child and to give treatment  and he came at about 8.20 a.m. and gave treatment to the child and however the  condition of the child become critical and hence he informed the mother and father of the child to shift to some other hospital for treatment and  Dr.K.Satish spoke to the doctor and  gave Ex.B4 referral letter to Kanchi Kamakoti Child Trust  Hospital for treatment of the child and accordingly the child was taken in a van to the 3^rd Opposite Party hospital and  the child was not treated and thereafter the child was admitted at the children hospital, Egmore and then at Dr.Mehta’s Hospital, Chetpet.

          6.The counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party  contended that the Complainant has not paid the amount due to the 1^st Opposite Party hospital and since she has not paid the consideration for treatment  she cannot be regarded as  a consumer. The Complainant replied that she has paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the 1^st Opposite Party hospital and for which they have not  issued receipt to her and therefore the contention of the 1^st Opposite Party has to be rejected. Right from the beginning when the Complainant became pregnant she was consulting with the 1^st Opposite Party doctor. However she consulted a doctor one time at Madhavaram. During the time of pregnancy when the Complainant was regularly consulting the 1^st Opposite Party doctor certainly she could have paid consulting fees and she continued to take treatment for delivery in the same hospital. It is not the case of the 1^st Opposite Party that she had not received any consulting fees from the Complainant and further it is not her case that she used to issue receipt for consulting fees. Therefore the Complainant consulted the 1^st Opposite Party doctor right from pregnancy and paid consulting fees and in continuance  of treatment she was also admitted by herself for delivery proves that the Complainant is a consumer.

07. POINT:2  

          Dr.Nasreen Ahmed (DW1) attended delivery on the Complainant on 10.01.2005 and she delivered a male child at about 8.10 a.m. DW1 stated in her cross examination dated  15.11.2011 that “immediately the head came out of the uterus, I found  the presence of the  Meconium in the mouth and the cord was circling round the neck twice and one of my staff nurse suctioned the Meconium fluid from the mouth of the baby and I released the cord from the neck of the baby and pull out the baby and further stated that “the presence of Meconium usually will lead to the complications of aspiration of the same by the baby which means  that the Meconium fluid would reach the respiratory passage of the baby and in the instant case the baby had aspirated Meconium fluid”.

          8. The Complainant contended that at the time of delivery the presence of paediatrician is a must and he alone can do the suctioning and admittedly no paediatrician was present and suctioning was done by a staff nurse which proves that the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service. The 1^st Opposite Party replied that, it is not possible to have the paediatrician at the time of delivery and for which he relied on the order of the National Commission in First Appeal No.490/2007 dated 13.09.2012 and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in FA No. 291/2006 dated 03.06.2010 and therefore the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed Deficiency in Service.

          9. In Ex.B19 (VIII) literature at page 94 of the type set 1^st Opposite Party it is stated as follows:

          A delivery in all meconium exposed fetuses, secretions in the oropharynx, nasopharynx and trachea were aspirated by the Paediatrician with appropriate feeding tubes.

The above literature categorically proves that the  bulb suctioning should be done only by the Paediatrician to  aspirate the thick meconium.

In Ex.B19(VII) literature at page 92 if Meconium is present suction mouth, nose and posterior pharynx after delivery of head but before delivery of shoulder  should be done. In the case in hand DW1 also deposed that when the head came out of the uterus she had seen the  Meconium in the mouth of the child. The literature proves that when the pediatrician has to do the suction of Meconium  then  he must be necessarily present at the time of delivery. The 1^st Opposite Party brochure of her hospital is marked as in Ex.B20 series. In the said Brochure also it is mentioned that “The paediatric consultant is available during child birth”. Therefore the above mentioned literature and the brochure of the 1^st Opposite Party proves that paediatrician should be present at the time of delivery. However, in this case at the time of delivery Paediatrician was not present and after delivery only DW1 called Dr.K.Satish (DW3) Paediatrician and he came around 9’o’ clock and taken care of the child.

          10. The 1st Opposite Party counsel referred an order of the National Commission Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in its First Appeal No.490/2007 dated 13.09.2012 (U.K.Suri Vs. Dr.Sushma Aggarwal of another) and another order of the State  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai dated 03.06.2010 (Dr.Asha R.Rao M.D., D.G.O. Vs. Mrs.Mini Devandran) supports the contention of the 1^st Opposite Party that  at the time of delivery the presence of Paediatrician is not necessary. The National Commission held  that no case of medical negligence was made out.  The National Commission not pointed out that at the time of delivery the presence of Paediatrician is not necessary.  The State commission held in its order as follows:  “ Para (13) “

          When the baby was normal and when the Opposite Party had no chance of doubt about the health condition, no duty was cast upon her, to refer the baby to paediatrician for opinion. The non-referring of the baby to the Paediatrician, as of routine work is taken as Deficiency in Service, then in our society, as per the infrastructure available, no doctor whatever may be the qualification, cannot run the hospital safely. Now a days, all the primary health Centre are permitted to attend the maternity cases and delivery are taking place. It seems all those hospitals are not posted with Paediatrician. If it is a condition, that immediately after the delivery, Peadiatrician should check the baby, then all the Primary Health Centre should have a Peadiatrician, which is not the case, which would indicate in a way, there is no rules and regulations, to refer the child as of routine to Paediatrician. As said above, if any problem had been noticed, which could not be treated by the Doctor concerned, who attended delivery, then only question of referring the baby for Paediatrician’s opinion is necessary.

11. The above observations is relied by the  1^st Opposite Party. The facts in the above case that mother delivered the child and including the  child was discharged and they went to their home  and after 20 days  the mother  came with the child, that the  child is having  breathing problem   and since the problem of the child was raised at later point of time, the State Commission held that  the doctor who attended the delivery cannot be held responsible. The case in hand has different facts.  The child in this case is in foetal distress at the time of delivery and this fact was admitted by Dr.Nasreen herself in her evidence. Further the Brochure issued by the 1^st  Opposite Party discloses that Paediatrician consultant is available during the child birth and for consultation thereafter. When the 1^st Opposite Party categorically stated in her Brochure that the Paediatrician is available during the child birth, then she has to ensure that a Paediatrician must be present during the child delivery. Further literature also clearly says that Paediatrician is must be present during delivery. In the National Commission and the State Commission order, the literature referred by the Complainant has not been dealt with. If the same would have been referred before the Commission, the Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission would have arrived different view. Therefore on this aspect we distinguish the orders of the National Commission and State Commission referred by the 1^st Opposite Party.

          12. Dr.Nasreen Ahmed admitted in her cross examination that  the child consumed Meconium and  the cord was circling round the  neck    twice  and she was removing the  same and simultaneously the staff nurse  who is with her  did the  bulb suctioning. The staff nurse is not an expert and she do not know the anatomy of   a human being.  Therefore it is very dangerous for the staff nurse to do the bulb suctioning. Since the child consumed Meconium the suctioning has to be done only by the Paediatrician to save the life of the child.   In view of the circumstances, the above referred orders of the National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and  State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission (SCDRC)  are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.  Therefore it is held that  the bulb suctioning has to be done only by the Paediatrician and hence the 1^st Opposite Party is not having a Paediatrician at the time of delivery, in spite of that the same has assured in her Brochure was her fault. Further  PW3  Dr.K.Satish Paediatrician who was attached with the 1^st Opposite Party doctor deposed in his evidence that

“Immediately after rupture of the membrane if the meconium fluid comes out usually a Paediatrician is to be presence in case in there is any need to attend the baby, which also depend upon the condition of the mother”

Therefore as per the above evidence PW3, presence of Paediatrician is necessary and hence we hold that Dr.Nasreen Ahmed has committed Deficiency in Service at the time of delivery of the child baby for not having the Paediatrician.

          13. The Complainant next contended that the 1^st Opposite Party sent the child to the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party for further treatment,  at  that  time no doctor  accompanied the child in the van. Admittedly the 1^st Opposite Party Dr. K.Satish Paediatrician was unable to treat the child in the 1^st Opposite Party hospital with available facilities and therefore she referred the child to the other hospital. Since the condition of the child is serious and the 1^st Opposite Party unable to treat the child necessarily one of the doctor should have accompanied the child  to the other hospital and such a failure  proves the deficiency of the 1^st Opposite Party     hospital.

          14. The child was born at 8.10 a.m.  on 10.01.2005.  PW3 Dr.K.Satish stated  in his evidence that the baby was having respiratory distress and administration  of oxygen  is a part of treatment and administration of Vitamin K injection is a part of treatment   and during administration of Vitamin K injection the date, time, dosage and route of administration which are to be recorded  is mandatory one.In Ex.B10 (d) case record at page 21 the administration of medicines for the mother and the  child  is recorded on 10.01.2005 to 12.01.2005. For the mother Vitamin K and other medicines are recorded in that page  on the same have been administrated. Whereas for the baby the Vitamin K injection was not recorded and on the other hand some other injection have been recorded hence the case sheet reveals that  Vitamin K injection was not administered to the baby/child.  Dr.K.Satish stated    administration of Vitamin K injection is a part of treatment for respiratory distress. Since as per the case sheet the Vitamin K injection was not administered to the child as found by Dr.K.Satish, the child continued to be in respiratory distress and failure to administer Vitamin K injection is  a deficiency treatment to the child.  

          15. The 1^st Opposite Party Brochure states that Neonatal wards  has facilities  with centralized oxygen supply, baby warmer, phototherapy and low power infant suction units and is completely aseptic free to handle any neonatal cases. Dr.Nasreen Ahmed categorically admitted in her evidence that post natal ward in her affidavit refers only bed and her hospital does not have any separate post natal ward. Therefore Dr.Nasreen Ahmed evidence is contrary to her assurance given in the brochure. Therefore her hospital is not competent to give sufficient treatment to the child who has consumed thick Meconium.

          16. The Complainant contended that due to the consumed meconium by the child  and no proper bulb suctioning  was done by a Peadiatrician the child became mentally disabled and that was also supported  by the certificate issued by the Government Mental Retardation Certificate Board. The 1^st Opposite Party would reply that, after the discharge of the child from the 1^st Opposite Party, the child was treated at children hospital, Egmore and Mehta Nursing Home, Chepet Chennai and therefore the contention of the Complainant that the child became mental retardation due to the treatment of the 1^st Opposite Party is not acceptable. Dr.Nasreen Ahmed and Dr.K.Satish admitted in their evidence that the child consumed thick Meconium and the child was also in respiratory distress.

          17. Dr.K.Satish stated in his evidence that immediately 55 minutes  after birth of the child on 10.01.2005 the baby was under his care and usually by administering oxygen, the baby would recover from the  respiratory distress and there was no progress with regard to the baby and the respiration rate exceeds over and above 70 per minute, it is known as severe respiratory distress. As per the monitoring sheet of the baby in respect of oxygen was given between 19.30 hours and 20.00 hours and on 11.01.2005 between 6.00 hours and 7.00 hours no oxygen was given to the child.  So also there was no record to show that on 11.01.2005 evening when the child was taken through to the van to the 2^nd Opposite Party hospital, during the journey there is no evidence the child was administrated oxygen to recover from respiratory distress. Since there was no administrator of oxygen during the above said hours certainly as contended by the Complainant the child would have suffered with respiratory distress and due to that the child could have been suffered with mental disorder. The contention of the 1^st Opposite Party that the child took treatment at other hospitals and therefore for mental  retardation of the child the 1^st Opposite Party cannot be fixed.  In the 1^st Opposite Party hospital oxygen was not properly administered. Therefore in the circumstances the child took treatment at other hospital is immaterial, since the 1^st Opposite Party has not properly administered oxygen. Further the certificate issued by the Mental Retardation Certificate Board reveals 65% of disability which is permanent one in the year 2012. In the year 2009 the disability was temporary only as per the above said certificate. The 1^st Opposite Party contended that no expert evidence adduced that the child is suffering from 65% disability.  The certificate before us available was issued by the Government Mental Retardation Certificate Board consists of Doctor’s. Therefore there is no reason to reject the disability certificate before us. Therefore in the circumstances the improper administration of oxygen caused mental retardation and therefore the 1^st Opposite Party committed deficiency in this regard also.

          18. The Complainant next contended that neither she nor her husband was informed about the Medio lateral episiotomy done by the Dr.Nasreen Ahemed to deliver the child and due to that she could not lead conjugal relationship in the family and therefore the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service. The doctor has done the Medio lateral episiotomy to facilitate her to deliver the child. After delivery of the child the doctor also put sutures. Due to Mediolateral episiotomy she was not able to have conjugal relationship was not established by any other acceptable medical evidence. Therefore on this score the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service is not acceptable. Therefore as discussed above in para’s 7 to 16 we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party had committed Deficiency in Service.

19.POINT:3        

 Dr.K.Satish pediatrician treated the child at the 1^st Opposite Party hospital. When the condition of the child became critical at his instructions dangerously ill consent form (DIL) was obtained from the parents of the child. During his treatment he found that the child was having mild respiratory distress which might have been caused due to swallowing of Meconium fluid and the child was brought under his control.  Since the  heart rate and pulse rate are at the maximum limit Dr.K.Satish adviced the baby to be shifted for neonatal intensive care unit and thereafter he referred the child under Ex.B4 to the 3^rd Opposite Party hospital, after spoken to a doctor  in that hospital.

20. The counsel for the  Complainant contended that  the doctor at the 3^rd Opposite Party hospital  seen the child in the van itself and they have  refused to treat the child and therefore they have admitted the  child at the Children Hospital, Egmore and further as per Ex.B1 page 1 of the 3^rd Opposite Party hospital the child was in respiratory distress and very sick on arrival and required ventilator support and  as per the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 regulations 2.1.1 in case of emergency a physician must treat the patient and arbitrarily  cannot refuse treatment and as per 2.4 the patient should not be neglected and in case in hand the above said both the  regulations was violated by the 3^rd Opposite Party doctors by refusing to give treatment to the child and that forced the child father to admit the child at the children hospital, Egmore and  the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Trust and hence he is vicariously liable for the act of the 3^rd Opposite Party and hence the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

          21. The counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party would reply that as per 1.8 regulation  a physician should announce his fees before rendering service and not after the operation or treatment is under way and in that process in the case in hand also the 3^rd Opposite Party informed  that the Complainant has to incur an expenses of Rs.7,000/- per day and after hearing this the father of the child has taken the child on his own and thereafter admitted at the Children Hospital and hence the question of the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties refused to treat the child does not arise and consequently the Complaint against these Opposite Parties  are liable to be dismissed. 

          22. Admittedly the child was seen in the van itself and professional fees also informed as per regulations 1.8 to the father of the child. Further the child was under treatment and for  further treatment only  referred by Dr.K.Satish. Therefore after knowing the fees which cannot be afforded by the father of the child and he had  voluntarily taken the child for some other hospital and therefore the question of  the 2^nd  & 3^rd Opposite Party neglected or refused to give treatment to the child cannot be accepted and in view of the same, it is held that  the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party  have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 

23.POINT:4

          The Complainant claimed in the Complaint a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation towards exact  medical expenses, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental  agony, pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages with cost of the proceedings.  Due to the deficiency committed by the 1^st Opposite Party towards the child the Complainant suffered with mental agony and the Complainant and child suffered with pain and sufferings is acceptable. The Complainant claimed compensation only Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering and such amount is only a  meager amount. Therefore  we hold that for mental agony, pain and sufferings, the Complainant  is entitled for the amount claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant filed Ex.A10 to Ex.A12 and Ex.A51 to A53 medical bills, test reports and towards purchase of the medicines in the Mehta nursing homes as well as other Pharmacies which comes to  a total sum  of Rs.48,876/-.  The Complainant claimed towards medical expenses only a sum of Rs.80,000/-. Therefore the amount spent on Ex.A10 to Ex.A12 and Ex.A51 to Ex.A53a sum of Rs.48,876/- towards medical expenses can be ordered in favour of the Complainant. The case is conducted for more than 9 years and considering this aspect a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be ordered towards litigation expenses. The Complainant is entitled for relief’s indicated as above from the 1^st Opposite Party. However, the Complainant in respect of the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.48,876/- (Rupees forty eight thousand eight  hundred and seventy six only) towards medical expenses to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as compensation for mental agony besides  a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees  ten   thousand  only) towards litigation expenses. The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint in respect of the 2^nd and 3rd Opposite Parties are dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 1^st day of April 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 13.01.2005	Clinical Report
Ex.A2 dated 14.01.2005	“
Ex.A3 dated 15.01.2005	Ultra Sound Report of Cranium
Ex.A4 dated 15.01.2005	Clinical Report
Ex.A5 dated 18.01.2005	Scan Report
Ex.A6 dated 18.01.2005	Ultra Sound Report
Ex.A7 dated NIL	Sonology Report
Ex.A8 dated 21.01.2005	EEG and Brain Map Analysis
Ex.A9 dated 21.01.2005	Neuro Page Plus
Ex.A10 dated 24.01.2005                To    25.01.2005	Receipts
Ex.A11 dated 02.02.2005	“
Ex.A12 dated NIL	Medical Bills
Ex.A13 dated 07.06.2004	Sen Hospital Test Report
Ex.A14 dated 07.06.2004	SHEIH Diagnostic Centre Report
Ex.A15 dated  21.06.2004	Opposite Party Hospital Prescription
Ex.A16 dated 01.09.2004	St.Anton’s Hospital Consultation slip
Ex.A17 dated 02.09.2004	St.Anony Hospital Ultrasound Scan Report
Ex.A18 dated 14.09.2004	Opposite Party Hospital Prescription
Ex.A19 dated 0.10.2004	St.Antony Hospital Consultation slip
Ex.A20 dated 19.11.2004	Shakthi Scan Ultra sound Report
Ex.A21 dated 16.12.2004	Opposite Party Hospital Prescription
Ex.A22 dated 06.06.2005	Srinivas Priya Hospital Prescription
Ex.A23 dated 24.01.2005	Dr.Mehta Hospital Discharge Summary

Ex.A24 dated NIL                             Dr.J.Vishwanath Prescriptions

Ex.A25 dated NIL                             IMMUNISATION RECORD

Ex.A26 dated NIL                             Dr.J.Viswanath Prescription

Ex.A27 dated  05.02.2006      Vinayak Diagnostic Centre Lab Report

Ex.A28 dated NIL                             Dr.M.R.Rajesh Kumar Prescriptions

Ex.A29 dated 29.11.2006                 Appollo Lab Report

Ex.A30 dated NIL                             Dr.M.R.Rajesh Kumar Prescriptions

Ex.A31 dated  22.06.2007      Sen Hospital Prescription

Ex.A32 dated 27.06.2007                 Gemini Lab Scan Report

Ex.A33 dated 19.07.2007                 Dr.C.Thangadurai Prescriptions

Ex.A34 dated 19.07.2007                 Vita Diagnostic MRI – BRAIN

Ex.A35 dated 19.07.2007                 Dr.C.Thangadurai Prescriptions

Ex.A36 dated 04.08.2007                 X-Ray Report on Both Knees

Ex.A37 dated 09.08.2007                 Dr.Manu Narayanan Medical Record

Ex.A38 dated 27.08.2007                 Dr.D.Rajesh (Ortho) Prescription

Ex.A39 dated 20.09.2007                 Dr.Meer Mustafa Hussain Referrai

Ex.A40 dated 02.10.2007                 Dr.Kumarasan reply to Referrai

Ex.A41 dated 09.11.2007                 Dr.Rajesh Kumar Prescriptions

Ex.A42 dated 11.11.2007                 Dr.Meer Mustafa Hussain Prescriptions

Ex.A43 dated 28.11.2007                 Dr.Balakumar Prescription

Ex.A44 dated 04.02.2008       Dr.Meer Mustafa Hussain Prescriptions

Ex.A45 dated 19.05.2008                 Sen Hospital Prescription

Ex.A46 dated 04.07.2008                 Dr.Meer MustafaHussain Prescriptions

Ex.A47 dated 28.09.2008        Dr.M.Venkatesan Certificate

Ex.A48 dated 07.07.2009                 Dr.Meer Mustafa Hussain Prescriptions

Ex.A49 dated 21.07.2009                 Certificate of mental Retardness issued by

                                                  Government of Tamilnadu   

Ex.A50 dated  08.12.2009      Dr.Meer Mustafa Hussain Prescriptions

Ex.A51 dated  07.06.2006      SRI Balaji Medicals Bill

Ex.A52 dated 19.07.2007                 Viva Vita Disgnostic Systems Pvt.Ltd.

Ex.A53 dated 18.05.2007                 SRI Balaji Medicals Bill

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated 31.03.2005                   Letter received from Kanchi Kamakoti Child Trust

                                                Hospital

Ex.B2 dated  31.03.2005                  Letter received from Dr.Metha’s Hospital 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Information gathered of the baby of the

                                                   Complainant from the Institute of Child Health & 

                                                Hospital for Children, Egmore         

Ex.B4 dated  11.01.2005                  NRMHPL Referral Letter to NICU,KKCCTH

Ex.B5 dated 12.01.2005                   NRMHPL Bill No.2547 – Rs.3546/-                   

Ex.B6 dated  12.01.2005                  Undertaking letter No.20 for credit payment signed

                                                  by patient’s husband                     

Ex.B7 dated  19.05.2007                  NRMPHL Auditor letter

Ex.B8 dated  21.06.2004                  Ante Natal – Out Patient Slip

Ex.B9 dated 10.01.2005               Consent Form for Delivery

Ex.B10 dated NIL                          Complete Hospital Records and case Sheets(11 – 34)

Ex.B11 dated  NIL                         ISO 9001 : 2000 Certification – GCAS

Ex.B12 dated NIL                          Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative Certificate

Ex.B13 dated NIL                         Woman and Child Friendly Hospital Initiative

                                             Certificate

Ex.B14 dated NIL                          ICRA Limited Certificate on Evaluation of Maternal

                                             and Child Health Services

Ex.B15 dated NIL                         Following Medical Fraternity assessed and

                                             recommended NRM

Ex.B16 dated NIL                         a. Certificate of Incorporation with Registrar of

                                               Companies

                                            b. List of Directors of NRMPL

Ex.B17 dated NIL                         List of Medical Consultants of NRMHPL

Ex.B18 dated NIL                        Consultants Profile

Ex.B19 dated NIL                        Medical Journals & News Paper Cutting – 11 nos.

Ex.B20 dated NIL                        Others

1. Appreciated Poem from the other patient
2.  Corporate Brochur
3.  Authorities copy – Judgement – Bolam’s Test
4. Newspapaer cutting – Indian express (Every seven minute one woman die)

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT