BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL
Present : Sri P.Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B.,
Member-cum-FAC President.
And
Smt S.B.Bhargavi, B.A., LL.M.,
Member.
Friday the 26th day of June, 2015.
CONSUMER DISPUTE No.45/2006
Date of filing : 06-05-2006
Date of Disposal : 26-06-2015
Between:
1) Asarapu Sailu, S/o Ramchandru, Age: 60 yrs,
Occ: Taddy Tapper, R/o Kuthur Village of Rayaparthy Mandal,
Warangal District.
(Deleted as per docket order dated 15-12-2009)
2) Asarapu Raju, S/o Sailu, Age: 24 yrs,
Occ: Taddy Tapper, R/o Kuthur Village of Rayaparthy Mandal,
Warangal District.
3) Merugu Manemma, W/o Upender, Age: 30 yrs,
Occ: Houshold, R/o Penikedu (V) of Rayaparthy Mandal,
Warangal District.
4) Swaroopa, W/o Yakaiah, Age: 25 yrs,
Occ: Household, R/o Perikedu (V) of Rayaparthy Mandal,
Warangal District.
5) Dommati Sharadha, W/o Kommalu, Age: 23 yrs,
Occ: Household, /o Kuthur Village of Rayaparthy Mandal,
Warangal District.
…Complainants
And
1) Dr. Vangala Ravinder Reddy, S/o Not known, Age: 50 yrs,
Occ: Medical Profession, Mamatha Nursing Home,
Wardhannapet, Warangal District.
2) Mamatha Nursing Home, Wardhannapet,
Rep. by Dr. Vangala Ravinder Reddy, Proprietor. …Opposite parties.
This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 11-06-2015, in the presence of Sri C.Vidyasagar Reddy Advocate for the Complainants, and Sri G.Vidyasagar Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER
Per Smt.S.B.Bhargavi, Lady Member
1. The Complainants filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of late Uppalamma @ Upendra caused due to the negligent treatment of the opposite parties and award costs.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant No.2 admitted his mother Uppalamma @ Upendra at opposite party No.2’s hospital as she was suffering with sputum in her throat, for which the opposite party No.1 collected Rs.1,000/- towards initial hospital charges, for which no receipt was issued by the opposite parties. On the same day at 8.30 a.m. while giving treatment by the opposite parties, his mother declared as dead, for which the complainant NO.2 lodged a complaint before the Police against opposite party No.1 for his negligent treatment of his mother, upon which the Police registered a case against the opposite party No.1 in Crime No.136/2005 under section 304-A I.P.C., then the police conducted inquest over the dead body and referred to Government Health Centre, Wardhannapet for conducting the postmortem examination which reveals that the death of the deceased was only occurred due to “Hypoxia As a result of Tracheal perforation due to Endo Teacheas Intubation before the surgery by unskilled person, which as resulted in surgical Emphyseema of Mediasthinum Compressing both lungs and major blood vessels”.
3. The opposite parties filed the Written Version stating that the patient was brought to the opposite party on 04-10-2005 by complainant NO.2 with a complaint of fever, pain since 4 days. The complainant NO.2 informed that the patient is experiencing severe pain in her throat and discharge is stopped. The opposite party No.1 noticed small perforation to her trachea and told that it is the result of taking treatment outside. Since the patient is having severe throbbing pain, advised the complainant No.2 to take her to any hospital at Warangal. Accordingly the patient taken back, but again on the next day morning the patient was brought at 8.30 a.m. experiencing severe throbbing pain. On the incistive request made by complainant NO.2, the opposite party No.2 prepared for I & D (Incision and drain) and while washing the part vigorous cough developed and patient collapsed from sitting position. The opposite party NO.1 noticed Emphysema and as a life saving measure. He applied multiple nicks to drain out the puss. Inspite of best efforts and medically treating with all possible care and caution, the patient not recovered and died. Further states that the patient was not taken to operation theatre and no operation was done and not used any Endo tracheal tube and the treachea perforation is not the result of his treatment. As a matter of fact no perforation will be caused with Endo Tracheal tube. As such there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties filed their respective proof Affidavits. While the Complainants marked Exs.A-1 to A-7, and the opposite parties marked Ex.B-1.
5. Now the points for consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part
of the Opposite Parties?
2) Whether the complainants are entitled for the claim as prayed for. If so, to what Relief?
6. POINT No.1
It is the main contention of the complainants is that the complainant No.2 admitted his mother Uppalamma @ Upendra at opposite party No.2’s hospital as she was suffering with sputum in her throat, for which the opposite party No.1 collected Rs.1,000/- towards initial hospital charges, for which no receipt was issued by the opposite parties. On the same day at 8.30 a.m. while giving treatment by the opposite parties, his mother was declared as dead, for which the complainant NO.2 lodged a complaint before the Police against opposite party No.1 for his negligent treatment of his mother, upon which the Police registered a case against the opposite party No.1 in Crime No.136/2005 under section 304-A I.P.C., then the police conducted inquest over the dead body and referred to Government Health Centre, Wardhannapet for conducting the postmortem examination which reveals that the death of the deceased was only occurred due to “Hypoxia As a result of Tracheal perforation due to Endo Teacheas Intubation before the surgery by unskilled person, which has resulted in surgical Emphysema of Mediastinum Compressing both lungs and major blood vessels.
7. On the other hand the opposite parties contention is that the patient was brought to the opposite party on 04-10-2005 by complainant NO.2 with a complaint of fever, pain since 4 days. The complainant NO.2 informed that the patient is experiencing severe pain in her throat and discharge is stopped. The opposite party No.1 noticed smell perforation to her trachea and told that it is the result of taking treatment outside. Since the patient is having severe throbbing pain, advised the complainant No.2 to take her to any hospital at Warangal. Accordingly the patient taken back, but again on the next day morning the patient was brought at 8.30 a.m. experiencing severe throbbing pain. On the incistive request made by complainant NO.2, the opposite party No.2 prepared for I & D (Incision and drain) and while washing the part vigorous cough developed and patient collapsed from sitting position. The opposite party NO.1 noticed Emphysema and as a life saving measure. He applied multiple nicks to drain out the puss. Inspite of best efforts and medically treating with all possible care and caution, the patient not recovered and died.
8. It is an admitted fact that on 05-10-2015 at about 7.00 a.m., the complainant No.2 admitted his mother Uppalamma @ Upendra at opposite party No.2’s hospital as she was suffering with sputum in her throat, for which the opposite party No.1 collected Rs.1,000/- towards initial hospital charges, for which no receipt was issued by the opposite parties. On the same day at 8.30 a.m. while giving treatment by the opposite parties, his mother declared as dead, for which the complainant NO.2 lodged a report to the Police against opposite party No.1 for his negligent treatment of his mother, upon which the Police registered a case against the opposite party No.1 in Crime No.126/2005 under section 304(a), then the police conducted inquest over the dead body and referred to Government Health Centre, Wardhannapet for conducting the postmortem examination.
9. The facts which were disputed by the opposite parties that there is no negligent on the part of treating the said patient for suffering pain in her throat, the death of the patient was caused due to cardiac arrest, but not with the treatment in negligent manner.
10. According to the evidence of RW-3 i.e, Dr.A.Hemantha Rao, who previously worked as Professor, Forensic Department, Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal from 2000 to 2009 wherein he states that “the contents of postmortem report i.e, Ex.A-5 are true and correct. The death of the deceased caused due to injuries mentioned in Ex.A-5 in chest column. 7 and 8 also along with other injuries and also he further suggests that the Civil Surgeon who conducted postmortem examination is the proper person to give the reason for the death of the deceased and also postmortem examination report is clear with regard to the negligent of the doctor who treated the patient”.
11. As per the evidence of PW-2 i.e, Dr.K.Venkat Reddy, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon at Wardhannapet Community Health Centre, from June, 2001 to 2006. On 05-10-2005 he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of M.Upendra and observed injuries on the dead body as:
“1. Incised wound 1x1/2 right supra clavieelar, surgical blade, Ante
Mortem.
2. Incised wound 1x1/2 left supra clavicular area, surgical blade, Ante
Mortem.
3. Incised wound 1x1/2 x 1 Right Hypchondrium area, surgical blade,
Ante Mortem.
4. Incised wound 1x1/2 x 1 left Hypchondrium area, surgical blade,
Ante Mortem and found internal injuries as:
Perforation 1x1 Trachea stellated Endo trached tube, Antemortem.Also found swelling on throat on the right thyroid surgical emphysema present all over chest as well as in neck”.
“The cause of death of deceased is due to Hypoxia as a result of tracheal perforation due to endrotracheal tube intubation before surgery by unskilled person, which has resulted surgical emphysema of media steum compressing both lungs and major blood vessels. It means hole in throat air not entered into lungs which leads to surgical emphysema that cause obstruction and damage of major blood vessels and directly stopped the blood supply to the brain, it leads not supplying oxygen (Hypoxia). Hypoxia means not supplying oxygen”.
12. According to the evidence of Rw-1 i.e, opposite party No.1 that “I prepared for I & D (Incision and drain) and while washing the part vigorous cough developed and patient collapsed from sitting position and I applied multiple nicks to drain out the puss and I have not used to any endotracheal tube treatment and tracheal perforation is not the result of my treatment”.
13. After perusing the material on record, Ex.A1 is the Prescription of the deceased dated 05-10-2005 wherein the history of the patient is shown as B.P.120/80 and history is Thyroid cyst, Ex.A2 is the lab report which reveals the Hemoglobin percentage of the deceased as 64% i.e., 9.2 gms. Ex.A3 is the FIR issued by P.S.Wardhannapet, Ex.A5 is the Postmortem Examination
report wherein the cause of death of the deceased is shown as “Hypoxia As a result of Tracheal perforation due to Endo Teacheas Intubation before the surgery by unskilled person, which as resulted in surgical Emphysema of Mediastinum Compressing both lungs and major blood vessels”.
14. After considering the evidence of PW-2 which was supported by the evidence of RW-3 and Ex.A-5 i.e, Postmortem examination report which gives much weightage to the allegations made against the opposite parties by the complainants.
15. During the course of trial, the complainant NO.1 died, for which a Memo was filed by the complainant No.2. The citations filed by the opposite parties are not apt to the present case.
16. For the foregoing reasons given by us, it is a crystal clear case of medical negligence on the part of opposite party No.1. Therefore the opposite party No.1 is directed to compensate by paying Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- for costs and damages.
17. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties hence we hold under this point.
18. Point NO.2: To What Relief:- As we held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as stated supra, we decided this point in favour of complainants against the opposite parties.
19. In the result this complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to deposit in this Forum a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four Lakhs only) towards the negligent treatment and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh only) towards damages and costs within one month.
Apportionment:- The Complainant No.2 who is the son of the deceased is entitled Rs.2,50,000/- along with damages and costs. The Complainant Nos.3, 4 and 5 who are the daughters of the deceased are entitled Rs.50,000/- each.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 26th day of June, 2015).
Lady Member FAC President
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Parties
Deposition of PW-1 & PW-2. Deposition of RW-1, RW-2 & RW-3
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS
Ex.A-1 is the Prescription issued by opposite party No.1 dated05-10-2005.
Ex.A-2 is the Clinical & Pathological Laboratory report issued by opposite party No.2 dated 05-10-2005.
Ex.A-3 is the First Information Report.
Ex.A-4 is the Inquest Report.
Ex.A-5 is the Report of the Postmortem Examination.
Ex.A-6 is the office copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties, 17-11-2005.
Ex.A-7 is the Acknowledgment.
ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Ex.B-1 is the certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.334/2008 on the file of VII Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Warangal.
Lady Member FAC President
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
