Anuradha,W/o.Ramesh kumar filed a consumer case on 01 Apr 2016 against Dr.Nasreen ahmed,director,N,R.Medical home private ltd., in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 80/2007 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Jun 2016.
Complaint presented on : 15.06.2006
Order pronounced on 01.04.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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 01st 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 1st Opposite party : M/S. S.L.Sudarsanam
Counsel for 2nd & 3rd 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 1st Opposite Party Hospital on 09.01.2005 at 12.00 p.m. midnight for delivery of her child. From the time of admission the 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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.
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 1st 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 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The Complainant got admitted in the 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party was not paid by the Complainant. On 12.01.2005 the Complainant’s husband came to the 1st 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 1st Opposite Party hospital are denied as baseless. The 1st 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 2nd & 3rd 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 & 3rd 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 2nd & 3rd 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 1st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service?
3. Whether the 2nd & 3rd 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 1st 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 3rd 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 1st Opposite Party contended that the Complainant has not paid the amount due to the 1st 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 1st Opposite Party hospital and for which they have not issued receipt to her and therefore the contention of the 1st Opposite Party has to be rejected. Right from the beginning when the Complainant became pregnant she was consulting with the 1st Opposite Party doctor. However she consulted a doctor one time at Madhavaram. During the time of pregnancy when the Complainant was regularly consulting the 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service. The 1st 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 1st Opposite Party has not committed Deficiency in Service.
9. In Ex.B19 (VIII) literature at page 94 of the type set 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party discloses that Paediatrician consultant is available during the child birth and for consultation thereafter. When the 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party sent the child to the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party for further treatment, at that time no doctor accompanied the child in the van. Admittedly the 1st Opposite Party Dr. K.Satish Paediatrician was unable to treat the child in the 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party would reply that, after the discharge of the child from the 1st 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 1st 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 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party that the child took treatment at other hospitals and therefore for mental retardation of the child the 1st Opposite Party cannot be fixed. In the 1st Opposite Party hospital oxygen was not properly administered. Therefore in the circumstances the child took treatment at other hospital is immaterial, since the 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service is not acceptable. Therefore as discussed above in para’s 7 to 16 we hold that the 1st Opposite Party had committed Deficiency in Service.
19.POINT:3
Dr.K.Satish pediatrician treated the child at the 1st 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 3rd Opposite Party hospital, after spoken to a doctor in that hospital.
20. The counsel for the Complainant contended that the doctor at the 3rd 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 2nd Opposite Party is the Trust and hence he is vicariously liable for the act of the 3rd Opposite Party and hence the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.
21. The counsel for 2nd & 3rd 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 3rd 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 2nd & 3rd 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 2nd & 3rd 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 2nd & 3rd 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party. However, the Complainant in respect of the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 1st 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 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties are dismissed.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 1st 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
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.