KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 425/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 14-01-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. Dr. George Joseph, Managing Director, MVJM Hospital, Near KSRTC Bus Stand, Perumbavoor P.O., Ernakulam District. 2. Dr. Lathika Sukumaran, Gynaecologist, MVJM Hospital, Near KSRTC Bus Stand, Perumbavoor P.O., Ernakulam District. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. M.K. George) Vs RESPONDENT Mrs. Glitty Devis, W/o M.T. Davis, Maliekkal House, Onnam Mile, Perumbavoor P.O., Ernakulam District. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Baby M. perumpillil) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP No. 1273/2000 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The second appellant/opposite party No. 2 is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 10,500/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that she had undergone post-partem sterilization after two days of the delivery of the 3rd child on 04-04-1997. The procedure was performed by the second opposite party. She was assured that she would not conceive thereafter. Later she missed her periods in April 2000 and was also having abdominal pain. She consulted the second opposite party ie, in the last week of April and was told that the pain may be due to some digestive problems; and certain tablets were prescribed. As there was no relief, she was referred to P.V.S Hospital to consult a Gastro Eenterologist. The ultra sound scan revealed no abnormalities. Dr. Philip Augustine, Gastro Enterologist also prescribed certain tablets. As the pain appeared intolerable, she went to Amala Hospital, Thrissur on 10-05-2000 wherein a urine pregnancy test was done and was found positive. Then she went back to the second opposite party. On 16-05-2000, the second opposite party referred her to Perumbavoor Scan and Diagnos Centre wherein scan was taken on 17-05-2000. The Sonologist only told that the picture is not clear and that the details would be informed to the second opposite party. The second opposite party referred the complainant to Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly saying that she is helpless for further treatment. On 17-05-2000 itself the complainant was taken to the Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly as she was in severe pain. Again an ultra sound scan was taken and it was found to be a case of ruptured tubular pregnancy. Laparotomy was done under general anaesthasia. Left salpingo oopherectomy and right solphingeectomy was done. She was discharged on 23-05-2000 and was advised six months rest. It is the contention that the tubular pregnancy could have been diagnosed by the second opposite party at the earliest stage. She was very casual in discharging her services as a doctor after fully knowing the history of the complainant. She had to incur a lot of expenses for treatment, for bystander expenses, for loss of earning of her husband, mental and physical sufferings. She has claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation. 3. The opposite party had filed joint version contending that the complainant approached the second opposite party only on 17-05-2000 with urine pregnancy test report done at another hospital and wanted an MTP to be done. On a detailed examination a provisional diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy was made and advised ultra sound scan. As Sonolosit could not confirm the pregnancy, she was refereed to Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly for second opinion. At the above hospital the Sonologist confirmed the complainant’s condition as ectopic pregnancy. It is denied that the complainant came to the second opposite party with the scan report etc. It is denied that she was referred to a Gastro Enterologist. 4. The evidence adduced considered of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3, DW1, Exts. A1 to A21 and B1. 5. PW1 is the complainant herself. She has testified in support of the averments in the complaint. PW2 is the Pathologist of Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly who issued Ext.A17 histopathology report of the specimen received on 17-05-2000. After laparotomy the clinical diagnosis is mentioned as tubal abortion. The tube was ruptured. PW3 is the Gynaecologist at Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly who conducted laparotomy. She has answered in the affirmative to the question that if a patient who has undergone sterilization operation approaches the doctor after the lapse of some time complaining of missing periods and pain abdomen is it not expected to direct the patient to undergo urine pregnancy test in the normal course. DW1 is the second opposite party Gynaecologist who has affirmed that the complainant approached her only on 17-05-2000 with the urine pregnancy test done at Amala Hospital, Thrissur, which was positive and that she requested for MTP. Ext.B1 is the hospital record of the above wherein the above is noted. Ext.B1 also contains the earlier requisition dated 07-04-1997 for sterilization. 6. We find that there is nothing to indicate that the complainant consulted second opposite party only on 17-05-2000. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of DW1 to discredit her version. It is to be noted that in the cross examination of PW1 she was not specifically asked that prior to 17-05-2000 she has not consulted the second opposite party and it was on 17-05-2000 for the first time that she consulted the second opposite party after sterilization done in 1997. As observed by the Forum below, the version of DW1 in this regard cannot be relied. The case set up that the complainant consulted her only on 17-05-2000 can only be taken as an attempt to conceal the lapse on her part in not having the urine pregnancy test done. Ext.B1 appears unreliable. It is admitted that it was the second opposite party who conducted the sterilization operation. PW2 the Gyneacologist of the Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly has agreed with the suggestion that in such cases when such a lady approaches the doctor with complaints of missing period and abdominal pain the doctor ought to have subjected her to urine pregnancy test. It is only on the initiative of the complainant and her husband that she has gone to the Amala Hospital, Thrissur and found that the pregnancy test was positive. Evidently, had it been detected earlier ruptured tubular pregnancy having fatal consequences ought to have been avoided. We find that the second opposite party was careless and negligent in the examination of the complainant. In this regard, the order of the Forum is sustained. 7. The Forum has only ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,500/- the treatment expenses and costs of Rs. 1000/-. No interference is called for in this regard. In the result, the order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Sr | 
