O R D E R

By Smt. Rajani.P.S., Member

            The complainant’s case is as follows:  The 1^st complaint was treated for pregnancy in the 1^st respondent hospital and she was admitted in the said hospital on 18/4/02 at 3.15am due to labour pain.  The proposed date of delivery was informed is on 20/4/02.  The 2^nd respondent doctor examined the complainant at about 3.30am and told that the labour time is not attained and scolded the complainant for crying.  After half an hour stomach  was washed.  After that also she felt severe pain.  But the nurses told that the labour time is not reached.  After   that the nurses came in the morning and she was asked to reach the labour room by walking.  The nurses again scolded the 1^st complainant when she told that she felt fainting while walking.  After a while she delivered.  At this time the nurses did not care the 1^st complainant well and were telling stories of serials.  Only after one hour the child was shown to the family members and transferred to the ICU by saying that there is difficulty for the baby to breath.  After 1 ½ hour the doctor came and told that the baby passed meconium inside the uterus and that was entered into the lungs of the baby.  The doctor also told that the condition of baby is very very critical and needs effective treatment and discharged the baby to Mother hospital with oxygen facility.  The complainants spent about Rs.60,000/- towards the treatment of the baby at Mother hospital.  All the said miseries was happened due to the negligent act of the respondents.  The nurses in the respondent hospital are not so qualified.  Due to the deficiency in service of the respondents the complainants suffered severe mental agony and there occurred a life threatening condition to the life of the baby.  A lawyer notice was sent on 20/5/02.   But no remedy.  Hence complaint.

          2. Version filed by the 1^st respondent : The complainant was admitted in the respondent hospital on 18/4/2004 at 3.15am due to labour pain.  She was attended by the obstetrician and the nurses on duty with utmost care.  At 10.37am the patient delivered normally.  The baby cried well at birth.  The liquor was meconium stained.  The baby was given stomach wash.  As the baby developed slight grunt after 10 minutes he was transferred to the nursery and put in the care of the paediatrician.  When the breathing difficulty of the baby increased the paediatrician  suggested that the baby be transferred to a hospital with ventilator facility.  Accordingly the baby was taken to Mother hospital with supply of oxygen and was under the care and supervision of a hospital nurse till the baby was admitted in the Mother hospital.  The allegation that the complainant was not attended with due care is false and hence denied.  The delivery was under the supervision of qualified doctor and staff.  The inhalation of meconium by the new born took place inside uterus of the mother and hence it is baseless to say that it was due to negligence of the doctors and nurse.  The timely decision by the hospital authority to transfer the new born to the hospital with ventilator and the transfer done with oxygen supply and with nursing assistance would show the amount of care the respondent had taken for the welfare of the mother and child.  Hence the allegation that the hospital staff did not give due care to the complainant is baseless.  This respondent is not aware of the amount the complainants had spend after they left the  hospital and hence no command is made on that part of the complaint.  However the complainants have not sustained any loss due to the alleged carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and so the complainants are not entitled to any compensation from this respondent.  As there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this respondent these respondents are not liable to compensate the complainants.  The complainant is misconceived and without bonefides.  Hence dismiss.

          3. The 2^nd respondent adopts the version filed by the 1^st respondent.

          4. Points for consideration :

1) Was there any negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent?

2) Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st respondent

3) If so reliefs and costs?

          5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P7 and Exhibits R1 and R2 and the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1.

          6. The complainants case is that the 1^st complainant was admitted for delivery at about 3am on 18/4/02 in the 1^st respondent hospital.  She was suffering severe labour pain at the time of admission.  The 2^nd respondent came only 3.30am and examined and told that the labour time is not reached and scolded the 1^st complainant for crying.  After half an hour the stomach was washed.  She was suffering severe pain after that also.  But the nurses still least cared the 1^st complainant and scolded when she complained of fainting.  Soon after when she reached the labour room she delivered.  The nurses were not at all caring her in the labour room also.  After one hour of delivery the baby was shown  to the family members and told that as the baby had some respiratory problem he is shifting to the ICU.  The hospital staff did not say the reason for that.  After 1 ½ hour the doctor came and told that the baby had aspired meconium and hence needs better treatment and so discharged the baby.  The baby was shifted to Mother hospital and spent a huge amount for treating there.  All these miseries were happened due to the  negligent act of the  respondents.

          7. The respondents in their counter stated that the patient was attended by the obstetrician and the nurses with utmost care and she delivered normally.  The delivery of the baby was under the supervision of qualified doctor and staff.  As the  liquor  was meconium stained the baby was given a stomach wash and when developed grunting the baby was shifted to the nursery and was in the care of the paediatrician.  The inhalation of meconium took place inside uterus of the mother.  Further when the breathing  difficulty of the baby increased the paediatrician suggested  that the baby be transferred to a hospital with ventilation facility.  The baby was transferred with uninterrupted supply of oxygen and was under the care and supervision of a hospital nurse, till the baby was admitted in the Mother hospital. 

          8. The PW1 deposed that her delivery was attended by duty doctor and the doctor had taken away the meconium passed by the baby and further deposed that the doctor informed that the meconium was inhaled by the baby and needs treatment and it is expensive.

          9. The main contention of the complainants are that the meconium was inhaled by the baby as the delivery was delayed which was happened due to the carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  After the admission the 1^st complainant was examined by 2^nd respondent doctor and suggested that the proper time for delivery was not reached.  As per Exhibit R1 case sheet 2^nd respondent doctor had examined the 1^st complainant for three times and at the time of delivery another doctor was present and had taken the delivery.  As per Exhibit R1 case sheet at 5.30am very mild contraction and 8.50am also mild contraction.  ARM done and no         stain was recorded.   Besides this  the RW1 deposed that

So it can be seen that the 2^nd respondent doctor had done necessary steps for enhancing the delivery.  Besides this the delivery was occurred normally.  If the time was delayed normal delivery will not happen.  In this case no complication for delivery was happened.  So the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent doctor is not proved.  Further no expert witness is examined in order to substantiate the case of complainant.

          10. RW1 had deposed that the baby was shifted to another hospital as the respondent hospital had no facility to meet   the meconium aspired situation.  PW1 also admitted that the paediatrician doctor of the respondent hospital had intimated this situation to them.

          11. PW1 further deposed that

It is unbelievable that a new born baby along with oxygen was shifted alone to another hospital without the assistance of a hospital nurse.  Further the delivery was attended by a duty doctor even if the 2^nd respondent doctor was not present then.  So the contention of the complainant regarding the service of the respondents will not stand.  So the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents are not proved.

          12. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.

           Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26^th   day of September 2011.

                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                   Rajani.P.S., Member               

                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                             Padmini Sudheesh, President    

                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                   M.S.Sasidharan, Member                  

                             Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext. P1 Bill dt. 19/4/02

Ext. P2 Bill dt. 19/4/02

Ext. P3      –do-

Ext. P4 Copy of lawyer notice

Ext. P5 Bill dt.30/4/02

Ext. P6 Bill dt. 23/4/02

Ext. P7 Discharge summary

Complainants witness

PW1 – K.V.Krishnakumari

Respondents Exhibits

Ext. R1 Case record of Krishnakumari

Ext. R2 Case record of B/o.Krishnakumari

Respondents witness

RW1 – Santha Jacob

                                                                       Id/-

                                                                   Member