DATE OF FILING : 4.1.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of   May,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.10/2016

Between

Complainant       :   Jancy Bibu,

Manthanathu House,

Kolani P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv:  Bindu Gopal)

And

Opposite Parties                                          : 1.  Dr. Vinodini,

     Gynaecologist, 

     Chazhikkattu Hospital,

     Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

2. Dr. Deepa,     

     Paediatrician,

     Chazhikkattu Hospital,

     Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

3. The Managing Director,

     Chazhikkattu Hospital,

     Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.  

    (All by Adv:  Johnson Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant was admitted in the 3rd opposite party hospital for her 2nd delivery on 1.11.2015 and she delivered a female child on 4.11.2015 as normal delivery.  After the 3rd day of continuous labour pain, she delivered the child.  After the birth, the child had yellow colour and the 2nd opposite party did not care to give proper attention to the child and was discharged on 7.11.2015.

 

When the complainant reached home from the hospital, she suffered severe stomach ache and the baby started crying and refused for breast feeding.  On the next day itself, the complainant and the baby child were readmitted in the 3rd opposite party hospital due to the above reasons and diagnosed that the stitched portion  is infected and puss formed there.  But the 1st opposite party directed to clean the stitched portion and had not extended any proper medical

     (cont....2)

-2-

attention.  Eventhough the complainant informed the matter of yellow colour of the baby, the opposite party did not turned up to provide proper medical attention to the baby child also.  When the abdominal pain was shoot up, the relatives of the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party authorities and requested for a discharge for giving her higher medical attention, to some other hospital.  Thereafter the complainant and the baby child taken to MOSC Medical College, Kolencherry.  At there, after thorough check up, the doctor opined that the condition of the child and the complainant is very serious and the percentage of bilirubin  is very high in the body of child and it affected to the brain.  Immediately, the child was admitted in the ICU.  The team of doctors of MOSC medical college further opined that, due to the negligence from the part of the 3rd opposite party hospital, the condition of the baby child is worsened.  But the doctors were reluctant to give their opinion in written.

 

The complainant further contended that, the doctors of MOSC hospital further stated that infection caused in her uterus was solely due to the negligence and careless treatment of the 3rd opposite party hospital.  That was the reason of further abdominal pain and heavy fever.  Complainant further contended that, the treatment given by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in the 3rd opposite party hospital, towards the complainant and her new born baby was very careless  negligent and very poor due to that, the complainant and his family suffered much mental agony and financial damage.  Hence opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the negligent and careless medical attention which was extended by them to the complainant at the time of her 2nd delivery and further treatment.

 

Hence the complainant filed this petition alleging medical negligence against the 1st  to 3rd  opposite parties and she prayed for getting damages and compensation from the 1st to 3rd  opposite parties.

 

On notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version, 1st opposite party contended that, the complainant reported to 3rd opposite party hospital as a primi gravida and had antenatal consultation with the 1st opposite party.  Her antenatal history reveals that, she was found to have pregnancy induced high GTT and hypertension.  Later BP became normal and blood sugar was controlled under diet modification.  The complainant reported with complaint of abdominal pain and back ache on 22.10.2015.  Per vaginal examination, findings did not suggest that the patient was in labour and hence she was discharged on 23.10.2015, since her expected date of confinement was on 21.11.2015.  On 1.11.2015, the complainant was

  (cont....3)

-3-

readmitted with complaint of abdominal pain.  The complainant was kept under close monitoring of vital signs   and   foetal   heart   rate   and   on   2.11.2015   per   vaginal examination findings at 6.15 am showed 25% effaced cervix.  Since her pregnancy was only 37+2/7 weeks at that time, the blood sugar was well controlled, there was no indication to induce labour to hasten delivery on clinical side.  On 4.11.2015, the patient delivered at 10.20 am.  Baby cried immediately after birth and handed over to the care of the paediatrician and further management of the baby was by the paediatrician.  1st opposite party further contended that complainant was shifted to room and episiotomy care  and daily dressing was given as per protocol.  On the 3rd postnatal day she had complaints of pain at episiotomy site and on examination, there was minimal induration present.  The last suture was removed and wound as explored but no pus was drained.  On 7.11.2015 the complainant was discharged after episiotomy care and dressing.  There was no induration of the wound on that day.  She was advised to have iron and calcium and diabetic diet.  Further contended that on 8.11.2015, the complainant reported back to the 3rd opposite party, hospital with complaint of fever and stitch pain.  Episiotomy site looked normal, but labia minora on right side had swelling.  Upper sutures of episiotomy was opened and wound opened to let out about 3 ml of pus.  Patient was readmitted and started on broad spectrum antibiotics, analgesics, anti-inflammatory drugs and OHA as her General Random Blood Sugar was 223.  On 9.11.2015, the patient was afebrile.  The wound was cleaned and dressed and there was no pus.  One 10.11.2015, the patient complained pain at episiotomy site and requested for referral to higher centre against medical advice to go to higher centre, she was referred as per request.

 

Opposite party further contended that the complainant was properly attended and treated at the 3rd opposite party's hospital with atmost care and caution in strict regard to accepted medical practice and protocol.  The 1st opposite party had conducted trial labour as per protocol and the complainant eventfully delivered a female child baby with right medio lateral episiotomy.  RML episiotomy is a routine procedure in vaginal delivery which was carried out with due care and caution.  Episiotomy suturing was done with due diligence and care and post episiotomy infection necessitated further management with regular cleaning and dressing and resuturing along with antibiotics as per culture and sensitivity.   Opposite party further contended that, when the complainant was readmitted there with fever and swelling of right side labia minora, she was properly attended and pus draining was done and started broad spectrum antibiotics and anti-inflammatory drugs.  Episiotomy site infection is a reported complication in normal delivery with RML

  (cont....4)

 - 4 -

episiotomy which was not caused due to any act or omission on the part of 1st opposite party and wound infection was properly managed as per standard protocol.  After reference, the complainant was managed at higher centre in continuation of the same line of treatment given at the 3rd opposite party's hospital and she was completely cured with re-suturing and antibiotics.  In the light of the above stated facts, there was absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party and hence she is not liable to compensate the complainant.

 

In the written version, 2nd opposite party contended that at the time of admission, the complainant did not reveal the fact that her first baby died.  The complainant was a diabetic mother.  She gave birth to the child at the gestational age of 37 weeks and 4 days with birth weight 3.02 kg.  The baby cried at the time of birth.  The 2nd opposite party examined the baby and gave necessary treatment and closely monitored the treatment of the baby and on examination, the baby was active.  The 2nd opposite party had given antibiotics, oxygen and IV fluid to the baby when she was in neonatal ICU.  The sepsis screen of the baby was negative, tachypnea subsided by 24 hours and the mother started breast feeding.  The baby was sucking well.  After 36 hours IV fluid stopped and the baby was shifted to the side of the mother after 48 hours of birth.  Blood culture result of the baby showed no bacterial growth.  There was no blood group incompatibility and no evidence of sepsis and polycythemia.  Antibiotics were stopped after 72 hours as advised in standard test books and the baby was discharged on the 4th day.  At the time of discharge, the condition of the baby was normal and was sucking well.  Serum bilirubin was repeated and was 13.1 mg/dl and advised to continue breast feeding and the result did not warrant admission for baby.  The condition of the baby was good and there was no reason to shift the baby for treatment in higher centres.  The 2nd opposite party happened to see that baby when the mother was readmitted in the hospital.  The parents of the baby never made any complaint about the health of the child after the discharge of the mother and baby.  The 2nd opposite party has no knowledge about the further treatment or advice given in the MOSC Medical College.  2nd opposite party further contended that she attended and treated the baby with due diligence and as per the standard accepted practice and protocol and she cannot be held liable for the treatment given to the baby of the complainant.

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the discharge and treatment summary of the complainant and 

(cont....5)

-5-

her baby of the MOSC hospital dated 19.11.2015.  Ext.P2 is the copy of discharge card of the complainant dated 8.11.2015 to 10.11.2015.  Ext.P3 is the copy of discharge card of the complainant dated 1.11.2015 to 7.11.2015.

 

From the opposite side, 1st and 2nd opposite parties were examined as DWs1 and 2 respectively.  Exts.R1 and R2 were marked.  Ext.R1 is copy of treatment record of complainant Jancy Bibu and Ext.R2 is the copy of treatment records of the baby of  Jancy Bibu.  

 

Heard both side.  The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 

 

The POINT :-   We have perused the medical records on file and the evidence of both the parties adduced orally.  The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that due to the negligence in treatment from the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties, who are working under the management of 3rd opposite party hospital, the complainant and her new born baby had suffered serious health problems.  Due to that, the complainant was again admitted in 3rd opposite party hospital, with the complaint of serious abdominal pain and fever.  He further argued that the infection developed to the complainant in her episiotomy site was hospital acquired and infected only from the hospital.  The lack of care and improper treatment from the part of the 1st opposite party had  aggravated  the complainant's condition.

 

The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant and her relative demanded for discharge from 3rd hospital.  The doctors of MOSC hospital stated that the condition of the baby was very serious and they could save the life of the baby since she was admitted in the hospital in the proper time.  It caused mental agony to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.75000/- for further treatment expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, also along with compensation and cost of both the hospitals.

 

On the other hand, the learned counsel of the 1st to 3rd opposite parties argued that when the complainant was readmitted, the 1st opposite party had attended her properly when she reported back with pain, swelling and fever and

managed with paracetamol, antibiotic ciplox OZ, analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs. Upper  sutures of episiotomy was opened and wound opened and let out pus drained.  She became afebrile on the next day of 

  (cont....6)

-6-

admission and wound cleaning and dressing along with broad spectrum antibiotics continued and later referred to higher centre as requested.  It is evident from the documents produced by the complainant that she had developed episiotomy site infection and her condition never turned serious as alleged.  Further argued that causative organism detected was MRSA   (Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus is a staph germ that does not get better with the type of antibiotics that usually cure straph infection) and it is commonly seen organism in human body.  Other allegations are baseless.  The opposite party had treated the complainant with proper antibiotics and supportive medicines along with pus drainage and wound cleaning and dressing which are accepted line of management of wound infection.  The learned counsel further submitted that on 9.11.2015, the bilirubin test was repeated by the 3rd opposite party and got result on 13.1 mg/dl and there was nothing to worry about the condition of the baby.  More over, the averment that the doctors of MOSC, Kolencherry stated that the condition of the baby was very serious and they could save the life of the baby, are absolutely false and such an allegation said by the complainant only with a view to grab money from the 3rd opposite party.  Further argued that, since there was no complaint to the baby, as alleged, the MOSC hospital authorities refused to give such false certificate.  Hence there was no deficiency from the part of any one of the opposite parties and these opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant.

 

On going through the medical records and oral deposition of witness, we find that it was an established case of normal delivery and was properly handled and managed by both the opposite parties with due care and attention.  Ext.R1 and R2 medical records clearly reveals that, the 1st opposite party had conducted trial labour of the complainant as per protocol and she uneventfully delivered the baby and the baby cried soon and till the discharge of mother and baby, both their condition was stable and no allegations that, at the time of discharge, the complainant and the baby is suffering any type of diseases or ailments.

 

As per the complaint and proof affidavit and as per records, complainant was reported back on 8.11.2015 with the complaint of fever and stitch pain.  At that time, there was not a case that baby is having any health problem.  While the treatment was going on, the complainant and her relatives requested for a discharge for a higher management.  Hence there was no evidence that, the complainant  requested  for  the  discharge  due  to  her  worsening  condition. No where it is stated that at that time, the baby was also admitted therein due to any infected diseases.  As per records and evidence, it is seen that complainant was readmitted on 8.11.2015 and they took complainant to MOSC, Kolencherry 

(cont....7)

-7-

against the medical advice for continuous treatment in 3rd opposite party hospital.  No averment about the condition of her baby.  At the same time, the complainant further stated that, the doctors of MOSC Medical College, Kolencherry stated that the condition of the baby was serious and they could save the life of the baby since she was admitted in that hospital, she further averred that the hospital authorities refused to give such a certificate.

 

For substantiating her plea complainant produced discharge cum treatment summary of MOSC, Kolencherry, but she failed to produce the doctor who treated there  as a witness to convince the Forum that whether the averments in the complaint and proof affidavit is bonafide.  Moreover, except treatment records, no medical bills of MOSC hospital is produced to strengthening her plea of medical expenses.

 

Therefore in the instant case, we do not find a fault in the treatment adopted by the opposite party doctors.  The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are qualified doctors in their respective speciality.  The diagnosis and line of treatment was correct as per standard of practice.  Moreover, there is no expert opinion adduced by the complainant to prove the negligence.  In the context, we are relying the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India  in C.D. Sreekumar (Dr.) Vs. S. Ramanujan II(2009) CPJ 48(SC).  The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that,  

“bald statement of the complainant cannot be accepted to reach conclusions that the doctor lacked expertises.  It is observed that too much suspicious about the negligence of the attending doctors and frequent interference by courts could be a dangerous preposition as it would prevent doctors from taking decision which could result in complication and in such a situation, the patient will be the ultimate sufferer.”

 

Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, we find that there is no merit in this case and  the complaint dismissed.  No order to cost.

 

                  Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2018

 

   Sd/-

      SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

   Sd/-

      SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

         (cont....8)

-8-

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -   Jancy Bibu.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Dr. Vinodini.

DW2              -  Dr. Deepa James.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  discharge and treatment summary of the complainant and her

                          baby of the MOSC hospital dated 19.11.2015.  

Ext.P2            -  copy of discharge card of the complainant dated 8.11.2015 

      to 10.11.2015.  

Ext.P3           -   copy of discharge card of the complainant dated 1.11.2015 

      to 7.11.2015.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1           -  copy of treatment record of complainant Jancy Bibu.  

Ext.R2           -  copy of treatment records of the baby of  Jancy Bibu.   

 

 

 

         Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

             SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT