Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 Monday, the 9^th day of June, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 150/1997

Between:

Gunde Upendramma, W/o Yakaiah,

Age: 25 years, Occ: Labour

R/o Katrepalli (V), Raiparthy (M),

Warangal District.                                                   Died per L.Rs.

1. Gunda Yakaiah, S/o Linaiah,

   Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Labour.

2. Gunda Ambica, D/o Yakaiah,

    Age: 8 yrs,

3. Gunda Mallesh, S/o Yakaiah,

    Age: 4 yrs.

All are R/o Katrepally Village

Rayaparthi Mandal of Warangal district.                      … Complainants

AND

Dr.V. Ravinder Reddy, M.B.B.S.,

Mamatha Nursing Home,

Wardhannapet of Warangal District.

… Opposite Party

Counsel for the Complainants    : Sri. T. Gopala Krishna, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party   : Smt. A. Vijaya Kumari, Advocate.

                                                    ORDER

Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.

          This is a complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.1,65,000/-, with interest @ 18% p.a.

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

          The case of the complainant No.1 i.e, husband of deceased is that as per evidence of PW-1 G.Yakaiah that the deceaed Upendramma was got admitted by PW-1 in the Opposite party Nursing Home for delivery having paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- and the opposite party gave some medicines after admission at 9.00 p.m. on 11-4-97 and opposite party conducted operation for delivery and male baby was born to his wife.  The opposite party stated that there is loss of blood and asked for transfusion, then the relatives have consented to give their blood..  After testing them the opposite party stated that the blood group is different and asked to bring her brothers and sisters.  Immediately the complainant engaged jeep and brought the sister of the deceased Upendramma by name Bharathi and Opposite party taken her blood and transfused his wife, after some time the complainant NO.1 the deceased went in Coma and her condition became serious.  Then the opposite party asked the attendants to shift her to C.K.M hospital, Warangal by sending his compounder with them and admitted in the said hospital by 2.00 ‘0’ clock where the doctor of Govt. hospital refused to admit his wife saying that the condition of the patient is very serious.  Then the compounder of the opposite party left that place without admitting and also without informing to him and other attendants.  Then Pw-1 Yakaiah took his wife to Rohini Hospital there also expressed the doubts of her survival.  On repeated requests made by him she was examined by Dr.Manjula who also expressed her helplessness and advised to admit in Govt.Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda.  Then PW-1 Yakaiah took his wife to Govt.Maternity Hospital, Hanamakonda with the help of relatives and could manage to admit his wife in the hospital on 12-4-97 with great hardship and also forcefully leaving the life of his wife. The doctors of the Govt. Maternity Hospital Hanamkonda stated that there is rupture of uterus which was due to Unqualified and negligent way of conducting the forced delivery and conducted the operation and removed the male baby as such the uterus of his wife was ruptured and transfused the blood continuously.  He asked to issue discharge card and the case sheet furnishing the details of the treatment given to his wife.  On being asked by the doctors of the Govt.Hospital, Hanamkonda the opposite party issued a certificate dt.15-4-97.  He came to know later on that the opposite party has issued him a certificate stating that his wife was admitted in hospital for Family Planning Operation on 15-4-97 instead of giving the details of treatment given by him to his wife.  He has issued a wrong certificate intentionally suppressing the real facts. The doctors advised him to get the blood of Bharathi to be tested whose blood was given by the opposite party at Wardhannapet.  After testing the blood it was found to be “B” Positive group, where as the blood group of his wife was “B” Negative. Due to forced delivery and negligent way of conducting operation by the opposite party, the left upper limb of the baby was paralysed and the baby could not survive and died after (60) days. The wife of PW-1 was at Govt.Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda for about (26) days and has not been completely recovered and she was discharged on 2-5-97 with an advice to follow up treatment and she was taken follow treatment upto 30-8-1998 and the deceased Upendramma died on 30-8-98 due to T.B. attack.  So the pW-1 allegations that the deceased died only due to negligence treatment given by Opposite party.  And he requested this Forum as he has incurred an amount of Rs.15,000/- for treatment, Rs.500/- towards transportation from Wardhannapet to Warangal and rs.400/- for local transportation from CKM Hospital, Warangal to Rohini Hospital, and he also incurred  a sum of Rs.2,000/- for traveling, boarding and lodging expenses, and Rs.12,100/- for tests, blood transfusion, medicines and further asked an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages @ interest 18% p.a..

          Opposite party filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:

           Opposite party denied all the allegations made in complaint.  It is true on 11-4-97 at 9.00 pm. The complainant was brought to the hospital with bleeding and at the advance stage of breach with legs outside vagina and tears in perineal region. Immediately after giving emergency medicare to the complainant the complainant as well as attendants were advised to get the patient join in Maternity hospital at Warangal for medical treatment. Except this, he has not attended the patient and no operation was conducted and accepting suturing the tears part of vagina.  Hence, there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of him.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

          The complainants in support of their claim filed the Affidavits and examined as Pw-1 to Pw-3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-45.  On behalf of opposite party Sri Ravinder Reddy filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.

          Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/- and also an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages with interest 18% pa. along with costs.

          After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:

          During the pendency of this case, Gunda Upendranna died.  She is the

complainant at the first time and patient.  After the death of said Upendramma complainants NOs.1 to 3 brought on record as legal heirs of the Upendramma the deceased as per order in IA. 157/99 dt.19-4-99.  On behalf of complainants PW-1 to PW-3 examined and on behalf of Opposite party only RW-1 is examined.  On behalf of complainant Ex.A-1 to A-45, on behalf of opposite party side no document is marked.  The Govt. Maternity Hospital filed the documents which are marked as Ex.X-1 and X-2.

          The evidence of PW-2 goes to show that she is the sister of complainant no.1 the deceased Upendramma.  She stated that as per the advice of opposite party she was brought by PW-1 to the hospital of opposite party and she gave her blood to her sister, her blood group was “B” Positive and her sister blood group was “B” Negative.  PW-2 contention also is that due to negligence treatment given by opposite party itself her sister died.  And also as per the evidence of PW-3 Superintendent of Govt.Maternity Hospital, Hanamonda  she also stated that the deceased Upendramma got admitted in her hospital with her relatives and total abdomen Hysterctomy done in hospital.

 The evidence of RW-1 goes to show that he denied that he has not conducted any operation to the Upendramma but he admitted that Upendramma was got admitted in his hospital. At the time of admission of  Upendramma in the hospital of Opposite party of RW-1 there was a blood transfusion so at the request of PW-1 he got admitted her and also he admitted that he has taken blood of her sister though the blood groups are different. He has not transfused the blood to the deceased Upendramma.  In total he denied by way of saying that he has not conducted any operation and there is no negligence on his part at the time of giving treatment to the deceased Upendramma.  So he is not liable to pay anything to the complainant.

          After gone through all the evidence and records placed before this Forum, we are of the opinion that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party because in his chief and cross examination he clearly admitted that the deceased Upendramma got admitted in his hospital, but in his cross examination he stated that he has not maintained any case sheet with regard to the patient and he has given treatment so it is an unfortunate thing on the part of opposite party because every doctor has to maintain case sheet without case sheet there is no any life for the patient.  On what basis the doctor has treated for giving medicines, without case sheet we do not know.  So it is very much negligence on the part of the opposite party itself.  He stated in his cross examination that he maintained admission registers for the patients admitted in the hospital, no admission case sheet was opened for this patient as she was admitted in emergency. They maintain records for the treatment given to the patient.  He has not filed any record to show that the patient was not treated in his hospital.  Since the patient brought to the hospital he recorded the pulse rate and the B.P. etc., in the records.  Patient

was brought to the hospital on 11-4-97 between 9-30 and 10-00 a.m. so this much of the cross examination of RW-1 clearly goes to show that it is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  No doubt RW-1 stated that he has not conducted any operation to the Upenderamma, but it is utterly false because of evidence of PW-3 i.e., Superintendent of Govt. Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda she clearly stated that the patient has undergone breach delivery later she joined in her hospital for “Laberatumy with total abdomin Hysterectomy for diagnosis of rupture of uterus under General Anaesthesis i.e, uterus was removed.”  It is clear cut that RW-1 has conducted breach delivery that is the reason uterus was removed.  It is an admitted fact by RW-1 itself that there is no record from him and he has not filed any record to show about his treatment.  So it clearly goes to show that the doctor he himself conducted breach delivery to the deceased.

          The entries and Note in Ex.X-1 have been made by the Paediatric Surgeon at the time of operation in the operation theatre on 15-4-97 and the patient has undergone for Laberatumy with total abdomin Hysterectomy for diagnosis of rupture of uterus under general Anatesthesia.  On the basis of evidence of PW-3 it is clear that the patient was admitted in her hospital i.e., Govt.Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda with rupture of uterus and total abdominal hysterectomy done and abdominal hysterectomy means removal

of uterus.  Blood transfusion done with the bottles and Episiotomy wound infected, secondary suturing done.  For this RW-1 has admitted that he has done suturing. So this shows that he has conducted breach  delivery and the uterus was ruptured and also extracted the male baby from the womb of the deceased Upendramma. 

It is clear on the basis of evidence of PW-3 that the uterus of the deceased ruptured because already the opposite party conducted breach delivery prior to this that is the reason only the uterus was ruptured.  If really the opposite party not done any breach delivery to the deceased, certainly the doctor has to file any documentary proof to show that he has not conducted any breach  delivery to the deceased.   In the absence of any documentary proof certainly we believe that the opposite party did breach  delivery to the deceased Upendramma that is the reason only the uterus ruptured.  

 And further the evidence of PW-2 goes to show that the doctor has taken her blood and her blood group is B Positive and her sister blood group is B Negative.  But they are different.  As per her statement already pW-2 blood has given to the deceased Upendramma but as per the contention of RW-1 that he has not transfused the blood of pW-2 to the deceased, but it is utterly false.  If really he has not given the blood to the deceased Upendramma he has to file some of the documents to show that he has not given PW-2 blood to the deceased.  In the absence of any documentary proof certainly it is clear that opposite party has given blood of PW-2 to the deceased Upendramma.  And further the doctor has stated in his evidence that he has issued Certificate to PW-1 i.e, to the husband of deceased Upendramma by way of saying that he has conducted Tubectomy operation and the same certificate has given to him at the request of PW-1, but it is utterly false.  Without conducting any Tubectomy operation why he gave certificate by way of saying that he has conducted operation to the deceased Upendramma. It comes under the negligence of the doctor itself in negligence manner he has given the same Certificate ie., Ex.A-33.  This Ex.A-33 Certificate dt.15-4-97 clearly goes to show that the Opposite party has conducted Tubectomy operation on 15-4-97 to the deceased. But as seen from the evidence of PW-3 who is the superintendent of Govt. Maternity Hospital admitted in her chief examination that the date of admission of the deceased is on 12-04-1997 at 1.30 P.M. and date of discharge is on 8-5-97.  When the deceased was in Govt. Maternity Hospital from 12-4-97 to 8-5-97 it is not known how the opposite party doctor has issued Ex.A-33 regarding the conducting of Tubectomy to the deceased.

          On the basis of evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and Ex.A-1 to A-45 we are of the opinion that there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of  opposite party and he is liable for that.  Even though he is not liable for death of the deceased Upendramma but his negligent treatment by conducting breach delivery resulted in rupture of uterus and the deceased’s health was deteriorated.  So they are all comes under negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. When there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party certainly the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainants. 

          For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and this point is decided in favour of complainant against opposite party. 

Issue No.2 To what relief:- The first point is decided in favour of complainant against opposite party, this point also decided in favour of complainant against opposite party.

          In the result, this complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) to the complainants towards loss sustained by the complainants and Rs.35,000/- (Rs.Thirty five thousand only) towards damages, in total Rs.50,000/-  along with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization of the total amount.  And we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) towards costs.

So far as apportionment of the amount is concerned, the complainant No.1 is entitled Rs.20,000/-  with accrued interest and complainants Nos.2 and 3 are entitled Rs.15,000/- each with accrued interest.  The Complainants No.2 and 3 are being minors, their respective shares shall be ordered to be kept in any Nationalized bank till they attain majority.

          A month’s time is granted to the opposite party for the compliance of the order.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 9^th June, 2008).

                                                     Sd/-              Sd/-                 Sd/-

                                                Member           Member          President,

                                                   District Consumer Forum,  Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit of complainant No.1 filed                 Affidavit of O.P. filed.

Affidavit of G.Bharathi PW-2 filed

Affidavit of Dr.M.Samrajyalaxmi PW-3

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 to A-5 is the Out Patient Ticket of Government Hospital
2. Ex.A-6 U.C.G. of abdomen of Upendra issued by Rohini Hospital, dated12-04-1997.
3. Ex.A-7 to A-11 Lab Receipts issued by Rohini Hospital, Hanamkonda.
4. Ex.A-12 Prescription of Dr.K.Karunakar of Rohini Hospital, dt.:12-4-97
5. Ex.A-13 Bill issued by Rohini Hospital, dt.:12-04-1997.
6. Ex.A-14 Prescription of Dr.G.Ramesh, dt.:16-04-1997.
7. Ex.A-15 Out patient ticket of Government Hospital.
8. Ex.A-16 Case sheet of Government General Hospital, Hanamkonda, I.P.No.780.
9. Ex.A-17     -do-
10.  Ex.A-18    -do-  Regd.No.780   
11.  Ex.A-19    -do-
12.  Ex.A-20 Letter address to Medical Officer, Blood Bank, MGM Hospital, Warangal..
13.  Ex.A-21 Blood Group issued by Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda.
14.  Ex.A-22 Report of Blood Glucose estimation issued by VBR Diagnostics Hanamkonda.
15. Ex.A-23 Report of Blood Uria, Creatinine & Cholestrol estimation issued by V.B.R.Diagnostics.
16. Ex.A-24 Report of Lever Function Test issued by VBR Diagnositcs.
17. Ex.A-25 to A-32 Prescriptions of OP Hospital.
18. EX.A-33 Sterilization Certificate issued by OP, dated 15-04-1997.
19. Ex.A-34 Death certificate issued by Sarpanch of the Village, 21-11-98
20. Ex.A-35 Death certificate issued by Government Hospital, Hnk.
21. Ex.A-36 to A-38 Bills issued by Medical Stores.
22. Ex.A-39 Referral letter issued by Government Hospital,
23. Ex.A-40 Report of Urine examination issued by Laxmi Clinical Laboratory, dated 11-02-1998.
24. Ex.A-41 Haematology Report issued by Laxmi Clinical Laboratory, dated 11-02-1998.
25. Ex.A-42 Compatible Lable Blood Bank issued by Rohini Medicare Pvt.ltd., 
26. Ex.A-43 Compatible Lable Blood Bank issued by Rohini Medicare Pvt. Limited,
27. Ex.A-44 Prescription of Laxmi Nursing Home, dated 11-02-1998.
28. Ex.A-45 Receipt of Radiology Department, Rohini Hospital, Hnk.

 On behalf of Opposite party.

                   Nil

        On behalf of Govt.Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda.

1. Ex.X-1 Nature of operation
2. Ex.X-2 letter from Govt.Maternity Hospital to this forum.

                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                President.