Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/47/2014

Gnyaneshwar Jha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fortis Malar Hospital by its - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

13 Aug 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 23.01.2014

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 13.08.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.47/2014

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                                 

Gnyaneshwar Jha,

S/o. Mr. Udaykant Jha,

F4, H35, First Avenue Road,

Tiruvalluvar Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                        .. Complainant.            

 

 

                                                                                            ..Versus..

Fortis Malar Hospital,

Rep. by its Medical Superintendent / Facility Director,

No.52, First Main Road,

Gandhi Nagar,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant     : M/s. S. Natarajan

Counsel for the opposite party : M/s. Satish Parasaran & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for damages for the deficiency in service, mental agony and pain with cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that his wife Binita Jha was pregnant and expecting a baby during the month of January 2013.   She underwent various tests and regular medical check-ups as per the instruction of Dr. Nithyaa Ramamurthy of the opposite party hospital.  On 02.01.2013, at the 38^th week of pregnancy the Obstetric Scan was taken in the opposite party’s hospital itself.  The complainant submits that Dr. Nithya Ramamurthy attached to the opposite party hospital informed the complainant and his wife that amniotic fluid index level shows some danger to the baby and the normal delivery which would be very difficult and induced procedure may be required.  The Doctor also directed the complainant to undergo another scan in this regard with Medi Scan which was obtained on 03.01.2013 shows the Amniotic fluid index as 13.5. Thereafter on 05.01.2013, the complainant’s wife delivered a healthy baby.  The complainant submits that the Doctor created a panic situation to the tune of danger to the baby caused great mental agony. The complainant was awestruck by the variations in Amniotic Fluid Index, found himself very difficult to recover from the great shock and dismay.   The complainant was unable to forget the opposite party’s act and attitude who failed to exercise utmost caution and diligence when the question is the life of a child.  The complainant had been subjected to great mental agony and pain by the whimsical acts of the opposite party which has to be compensated.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that this complaint is filed without any basis.  The complainant’s wife was given best care.  Every time, the position of fetus, its movements etc were clearly explained.  During the 1^st trimester, Blood investigation, dating scan and first trimester screening were done in the opposite party’s hospital and administered iron, calcium tablets and 1^st dose of injection TT.  The 2^nd dose of injection TT was given in the 3^rd trimester.  At the 32^nd week of pregnancy, she was admitted in the opposite party hospital for the complaints of vomiting due to acute gastritis and due conservative treatment given and was discharged.  On 03.01.2013, the complainant’s wife Obstetric scan revealed Amniotic Fluid Index level at 8 cm.  She was referred to mediscan for 2^nd opinion at the 38^th week which shows 13.5 cm.  On 05.01.2013, the complainant’s wife gave birth to a male baby on a normal delivery.  Early diagnosis of ‘Oligohydramnios variation in fluid level’ would help the patient to go for a normal delivery.  She was discharged from the hospital on 07.01.2013.  There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The opposite party states that during the Month of May 2012, she was prescribed with Folic Acid Tablets and First Trimester Screening Tests, Blood Investigation and her Anomaly Scan done at Mediscan found to be normal.   She was given due injection of TT also.  The opposite party hospital had diagnosed the variation in the fluid level in the early stage and thus normal delivery without any complication.    Therefore, there is no negligence in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B34 is marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony etc with cost of Rs.15,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The complainant has not filed any written argument and not turned up to advance any oral argument also.  After the death of the complainant’s Counsel, notice issued to the complainant which returned ‘un-served’.   The opposite party filed his written argument.   Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that his wife Binita Jha was pregnant and expecting a baby during the month of January 2013.   She underwent various tests and regular medical check ups as per the instruction of Dr. Nithyaa Ramamurthy of the opposite party hospital.  On 02.01.2013, at the 38^th week of pregnancy the Obstetric Scan was taken in the opposite party’s hospital itself.  Ex.A1 is the copy of Obstetric Scan Report which shows ‘The amniotic fluid index is 8’.  Further the complainant pleaded and contended that Dr. Nithya Ramamurthy attached to the opposite party hospital informed the complainant and his wife that amniotic fluid index level shows some danger to the baby and the normal delivery which would be very difficult and induced procedure may be required.  The Doctor also directed the complainant to undergo another scan in this regard with Medi Scan which was obtained on 03.01.2013 shows the Amniotic fluid index on 13.5 as per Ex.A3.   Thereafter on 05.01.2013, the complainant’s wife delivered a healthy baby.  Further, the complainant pleaded in the complaint and stated in the proof affidavit that the Doctor created a panic situation to the tune of danger to the baby caused great mental agony.   Such advice / instructions / medical information amounts to deficiency in service.  But on a careful perusal of the records filed by the complainant under what circumstances, the information given by the Doctor caused such mental agony or deficiency in service is not explained. 

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001:18:411-419.   Early diagnosis of variation in fluid level would help the patient to go in for a normal delivery and safe child birth without any complication.   The extracts taken from text book are detailed below:

Williams Text Book of Obstetrics:

“A wider, inter observer variation in the Amniotic Fluid Index (AFI) has been observed as (around 5-10%) when “Oligohydramnios” is present.  Therefore, it is recommended that averaging three Amniotic Fluid Index (AFI) Measurements, when low liquor volume is obtained”.

As per “Fetal Movements & Presentation – by Goodwill Et al 1998

“When serial measurements of Amniotic Fluid Index (AFI) are necessary, repeat examination by a single observer results in best accuracy.   Other factors that could adversely affect Amniotic Fluid Index (AFI) include measuring pockets, measuring into gray or fuzzy tangential section of placenta or fetal parts, measuring the same pocket twice in adjacent quatrants, transducer pressure, altitude, maternal hydration”.

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that this complaint is filed without any basis and on ignorance.  The complainant’s wife was given best care.  Every time, the position of fetus, its movements etc were clearly explained.  During the 1^st trimester, Blood investigation, dating scan and first trimester screening were done in the opposite party’s hospital and administered iron, calcium tablets and 1^st dose of injection TT.  The 2^nd dose of injection TT was given in the 3^rd trimester.  At the 32^nd week of pregnancy, she was admitted in the opposite party hospital for the complaints of vomiting due to acute gastritis and due conservative treatment given and was discharged.  On 03.01.2013, the complainant’s wife Obstetric scan revealed Amniotic Fluid Index level at 8 cm.  She was referred to medi scan for 2^nd opinion at the 38^th week which shows 13.5 cm.  On 05.01.2013, the complainant’s wife gave birth to a male baby on a normal delivery. Early diagnosis of ‘Oligohydramnios variation in fluid level’ would help the patient to go for a normal delivery.  She was discharged from the hospital on 07.01.2013.  There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The learned Counsel further contended that during the Month of May 2012, she was prescribed with Folic Acid Tablets and First Trimester Screening Tests, Blood Investigation and her Anomaly Scan done as at Mediscan found to be normal.  She was given due injection of TT also.  The opposite party hospital had diagnosed the variation in the fluid level in the early stage and thus normal delivery without any complication.

1. The complainant’s wife had consulted the Opposite party for her First Trimester Check up.

It is submitted that Mrs. Binitha Jha, the complainant’s wife, aged about 25 years had consulted for First Trimester with Opposite party Hospital during the month of May 2012 (10.04.2012-03.07.2012).   She was prescribed with Folic Acid Tablets and First Trimester Screening Tests, Blood Investigation, and her Anomaly Scan done at Mediscan found to be normal.  She was given 1^st & 2^nd dose of Inj. T.T. and her interval growth was found to be normal.

2. The complainant’s wife was admitted in Opposite party Hospital on 20.11.2012 during her 3^rd Trimester period.

It is submitted that during the Third Trimester, at 32 weeks pregnancy, the complainant’s wife was admitted in opposite party Hospital on 20.11.2012 with complaints of Giddiness and vomiting due to Acute Gastritis.  She was treated by Dr. Nithya Ramamoorthy, Gynecologist, primarily and the patient was advised a series of Haemotology and Bio-Chemistry tests as part of the standard protocol.  The patient was diagnosed with Hyperemesis Gravidarum (HG is a complication of pregnancy characterized by intractable nausea, vomiting and dehydration).    The patient was treated with IV fluids, Tab. Razo-D along with regular medications.   Since all the blood investigation, scan reports were normal, she was discharged on the same day and advised to continue Iron, Calcium and Folic acid.

3. The Obstertric Scan taken on 3^rd January 2013 in Mediscan’s Report revealed that the patient’s liquor level was normal and Amniotic Fluid Index (AFI) was 13.5 cm.

It is submitted that the patient had consulted Opposite party Hospital during her gestational period of 38 weeks.   The Obstetric Scan of the complainant revealed that Amniotic Fluid Index (AFI) level was shown as 8 cm and liquor volume as “reduced” level Dr. Nithya Ramamoorthy, Obstetrician, requested the patient to take Ultrasound Scan with Medi Scan for second opinion.  The Obstetric Scan taken on 3^rd January 2013 in Mediscan’s Report revealed that liquor level was normal and Amniotic Fluid Index (AFI) was 13.5 cm.   The patient went into spontaneous labour at 39 weeks, progressed well in labour and she had a normal vaginal delivery with episiotomy in opposite party’s hospital.   She delivered a male baby at 9.25 am on 5^th January 2013, weighing 3.3 kg on 5^th January 2013  and due care was given to the new born and the mother and both were discharged from the opposite party hospital on 07.01.2013.

4. The opposite party Hospital had diagnosed the variation in fluid level at the early stage and thus, it helped the patient’s normal delivery and safe child birth without any complication.

It is submitted that on 03.01.2013, the complainant’s wife, Obstetric scan revealed Amniotic Fluid Index (AFI) level was found 8 cm, she was referred to Mediscan for second opinion.  Early diagnosis of “Oligohydramnios” (decreased amniotic fluid volume or Oligohydramnios when it occurs with other risk factors is associated with increased perinatal morbidity and mortality)”.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no negligence on the part of the part of the opposite party and hence, this complaint has to be dismissed.  

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.           

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of August 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	02.01.2013	Copy of Obstetric Scan Report
Ex.A2		Copy of the doctor’s letter
Ex.A3	03.01.2013	Copy of the mediscan report
Ex.A4	10.09.2013	Copy of the complainant’s email to opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1	20.11.2012	Copy of Admission Form
Ex.B2	20.11.2012	Copy of declaration of pre-existing illness
Ex.B3	20.11.2012	Copy of consent form
Ex.B4	20.11.2012	Copy of general consent for treatments
Ex.B5	20.11.2012	Copy of ET Triage Form
Ex.B6	20.11.2012	Copy of emergency room – Nursing Assessment
Ex.B7	20.11.2012	Copy of Initial examination
Ex.B8	20.11.2012	Copy of physician instructions & notes
Ex.B9	20.11.2012	Copy of Nutrition Assessment Form
Ex.B10	20.11.2012	Copy of Initial Nutrition Assessment Form (2)
Ex.B11	20.11.2012	Copy of Vitals
Ex.B12	20.11.2012	Copy of medication
Ex.B13	20.11.2012	Copy of Daily Nursing Home
Ex.B14	20.11.2012	Copy of Daily Nursing Flow Sheet (intake Output)
Ex.B15	20.11.2012	Copy of Nursing Admission
Ex.B16	20.11.2012	Copy of Diagnostic Report Haemoglobin & Electrolytes
Ex.B17	20.11.2012	Copy of Clearance & Acknowledgement Form
Ex.B18	20.11.2012	Copy of Discharge Summary
Ex.B19		Copy of medical literature – Oligohydramnios
Ex.B20	04.01.2013	Copy of Admission, Admission (labour), Packages for delivery
Ex.B21		Copy of Declaration of Pre-Existing Illness
Ex.B22	04.01.2013	Copy of consent form, consent for operation /procedure
Ex.B23		Copy of Diagnostic Report
Ex.B24	04.01.2013	Copy of nursing care & Daily Nursing Flow sheet
Ex.B25		Copy of Neo-Natal Case record
Ex.B26		Copy of Physician Instructions & notes
Ex.B27		Copy of Baby examination notes
Ex.B28		Copy of vital sign flow sheet
Ex.B29		Copy of Nurses notes
Ex.B30		Copy of medication Admission
Ex.B31		Copy of nursing admission & nursing notes
Ex.B32		Copy of ECG Reports
Ex.B33		Copy of acknowledgement Form (At the time of discharge)
Ex.B34		Copy of Discharge Summary & Clearance Form

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT