Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/102/2014

S. KAVITHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOVT. CHILD HEALTH AND HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

Muruganadham

27 Jan 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                  BEFORE      Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH          PRESIDENT

                                      Tmt. Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI            MEMBER

 

CC.NO. 102/2014

 DATED THIS THE 27^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2022

S. Kavitha

W/o. M. Arivalagan

No.30, Lakshmi Nagar 4^th Street

Velachery, Chennai – 600 042                                        ....Complainant

 

                                                  Vs 

The Director

Govt. Child Health and Hospital and

           Research Institute

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008                                            ....Opposite party

 

Counsel for complainant                               :   M/s A. Muruganandam

Counsel for opposite party                              :   M/s. T. Ravikumar

 

                This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 15.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments of counsel appearing on bothsides and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following order:

ORDER

Justice R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.    The complainant had filed this complaint U/s. 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards damages and cost.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

           The case of the complainant is that the    complainant gave birth to a female child on 27.5.2013 at 2.52 pm at Kasturibai Gandhi Government Hospital, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.   When the child was 2 ½ months she was admitted in the opposite party’s hospital on 28.7.2013 at 2.57 am for breathing trouble.  The child was received and put into intensive medical care.  At the time of admitting the child, there was no paediatrician in the hospital and some of the staff nurses admitted the child and gave some treatment improperly, without caring for the life of the 2½ month child.  The complainant and her relatives were not allowed into the intensive care unit and they were waiting outside the ICU.  The complainant was also not allowed into the intensive care unit.  But the staff nurses of the hospital instead of giving proper treatment informed the complainant that the survival of the child is very remote and they asked the complainant to pray to God.  But the staff nurses have not chosen to call specialist and they were negligent in performing their duty.  In such a situation the child died on 29.7.2013 at 12.45 am.   The death of the child was only due the negligent act of the opposite party.  The complainant had issued a legal notice on 10.6.2014 to the opposite parties.  Due to the loss of the child the complainant and her husband could not lead their regular life.  Thus alleging negligence the complainant had filed this complaint, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for damages and cost. 

 

3.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite party by filing their version as follows:

          One 2 ½ months old female child, by name Yogeswari, D/o. Arivalagan and Mrs. Kavitha was brought to the casualty of the opposite party on 28.7.2013 at 2.30 am., by the mother, with complaint of breathing difficulty, altered consciousness and refusal of feed intake since evening.  The child was immediately taken into the emergency room.  On examination of the child by the Duty Doctor, it was diagnosed that the child was having severe breathing difficulty with unstable airway, with altered level of consciousness, in a state of carcinogenic shock and respiratory failure.  The child was immediately given oxygen, IV fluids, inj. Dobutamine as infusion, appropriate for the child.  Emergency endotracheal intubation, with positive pressure ventilation, was started at 2.40 am.  The child went for sudden cardiac arrest at 2.42 am., and child was revived, with cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and inj. Adrenaline bolus was administered.  The child was continued on inj. Adenaline infusion.  The advanced life saving measures were done by Casualty Medical Officer, on duty, who is an Assistant Professor, holding post Graduate Degree in Paediatrics. 

          After the emergency resuscitative measures, the child was admitted to Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU).  At PICU the child was immediately connected to mechanical ventilator and was maintained on intravenous fluids, Dobutamine infusion, adrenaline infusion, Antibiotic as per the child’s requirement, by Duty Assistant Professor.  Continuous monitoring of all vital parameters were started. 

          On getting the history, the mother informed that there was a history of previous admission for breathing difficulty in the new born period at Government Kasthuriba Gandhi Hospital (KGH) Triplicane, Chennai.  History of second degree consanguinity parent, meaning the marriage is between the close relatives.  It was also informed that the father of the child was working abroad.  Therefore in the absence of the father, mother alone was explained about the baby’s condition, both in emergency room and in PICU and written consent was obtained from her. 

          In PICU the child was on mechanical ventilation with pallor, tachycardia.  X-ray showed Gross cardiomegaly and a provisional diagnosis of cardiogenic shock, post cardiac arrest state and suspected congenital heart disease was made out.  ICU of the opposite party hospital is manned by experienced paediatrician, round the clock to take care of sick children in PICU.  In this case, baby’s mother was with the baby in picu throughout the period of stay.  The doctors / nurses are duty bound to explain the parents about the child’s illness, seriousness of the disease, at the time of admission and consent has to be obtained, which was done for this child also.  The baby had history of illness and the death was due to the said illness, since birth and not because of the negligence of this opposite party. 

          Inspite of the best effort, the child went for cardiac arrest at 12.15 am., on 29.7.2013.  Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation was initiated and three bolus of injection Adrenaline was given and the child could not be revived and was declared dead on 29.7.2013 at 12.45 am.  The body of the baby was handed over to the mother on 29.7.2013 at 1.45 am.  The mother of the child was not willing for free mortuary van service, since she told that they had their own vehicle.  From the news paper, the opposite party came to know that the dead body of baby Yogeswari was found in coovum river near Napier bridge and sent to Government Royapettah Hospital for post-mortem on 29.7.2013 at 2.15 pm.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.       In order to prove the case on the side of the parties, proof affidavits were filed, and documents filed by the complainant are marked as Ex.A1 to A8 and documents filed by the opposite party are marked as Ex. B1 to B5.

 

5.       The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the baby was born on 27.5.2013 at 2.52 p.m.  At the time of birth the baby was admitted for metabolic seizures and treated for same from 27.5.2013 to 3.6.2013, and was nursed in the open care system and not kept in the incubator.  But subsequently due to breathing trouble oxygen was given, IV glucose, vitamin K and other calcium tablets were also given.  On the second day on 28.5.2013 baby’s breathing trouble was controlled and was allowed mother’s milk.  On the third day some antibiotics and IV Glucose was given and on the fourth day baby’s breathing trouble was totally controlled and there was no fix for the baby.  The baby become normal and was discharged on 3.6.2013. 

          After 2 ½ months suddenly again the child was having a breathing problem.  Since 28.7.2013 was a Sunday, the complainant took the child to the opposite party hospital.  But there was no paediatrician available in the hospital on that day and only staff nurses were available.  Without consulting the doctor, staff nurses voluntarily started Pleural effusion.  There was no paediatrician at the time of admission of the child.  The staff nurses without consulting the doctor started treatment in the ground floor.  They inserted some tubes into the mouth of the baby and tried to effuse fluid in the pleural cavity.  At that time the child cried loudly, even thereafter they continued.  After sometime the baby was soundless.  At the same time the two nurses informed the complainant that the baby would die and requested the complainant to pray the God.  The complainant become upset, while so the baby was sent to emergency room.  But no life saving drug was given.  The child went into cardiac arrest at 2.42 am of 28.7.2013.  But as per the case sheet and death summary provided by the opposite party, the child went into cardiac arrest at 12.15 a.m of 29.7.2013.  Therefore there is a contradictory statement with regard to time and date of cardiac arrest. 

          As per the version of the opposite party, the child was under cardiogenic shock and post cardiac arrest.  The first goal of emergency treatment for cardiogenic shock is to improve the flow of blood and oxygen to the body’s organs.  Emergency life support treatment is needed for any type of shock.  This treatment helps to get oxygen rich blood flowing to the brain, kidneys and other organs.  But the opposite party failed to do that and neglected the child.  The treatment was not given as per the version of the opposite party.  Therefore there is negligence in the service rendered by the opposite party.

 

6.       Countering the submission, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the child was born in Government Kasthuribai Hospital on 27.5.2013 at about 2.52 pm.  The baby was the first child and there was second degree consaguity (marriage between close relatives).  The baby seems to have respiratory distress since birth.  This opposite party also came to know about the advise given by the Govt. Kasthuribai Hospital, Triplicane about the condition of the baby and the seriousness of the disease.  But the mother had not taken proper care, when the child was brought on 28.7.2013 with breathing difficulty.  The baby was received in the emergency ward of the opposite party hospital at 2.45 am. On examination the baby had complaints of breathlessness, poor feed intake and altered sensorium.  Immediately the baby was admitted to the IMCU of the hospital under a senior paediatrician unit.  The baby was intubated and put on mechanical ventilator to stabilise the vital parameters.  Again by 9.30 am the baby started developing distress and immediately cardiologist opinion was sought for.  Mechanical ventilation was continued and at about 12.15 am on 29.7.2013 the baby had cardiac arrest and despite the efforts the baby was declared dead by 12.45 am.  Thus proper efforts were taken by the opposite party.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.  In support of their contention, the opposite party had produced the case sheet of baby Yogeswari.

 7.      We have heard the submissions on both side and perused the documents filed in support of the parties.

8.       The only point is to be considered for deciding this complaint is

          Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in rendering their medical service?

 

9.       POINT NO.1:

          From the material available on record, it appears that since the birth of the baby, she was having Respiratory distress.  From the case sheet of Kasturibai Gandhi Hospital as seen under Ex.B1, it could be seen that the baby had developed the said disease as early as on 28.5.2013 itself.  By giving a proper treatment the baby was stable.  While on 28.7.2013 again with breathing difficulty, the baby was admitted in the opposite party hospital.  According to the complainant, they have not given proper treatment.  But from the perusal of the case sheet of baby Yogeswari, it could be seen that the baby was intubated to stabilise the vital parameters, but inspite of that the baby started developing distress and Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation followed by inj. adrenaline. However her heart rate and Blood pressure were so poor.  Finally the baby was declared dead by 12.45 am.  However from the case sheet it is seen that the treatment was given systematically. 

 

10.     Moreover the complainant had no strong case to point out the defect on the side of the opposite party.  In fact the complaint was poorly drafted with bald and vague allegations.  As per the medical records all the necessary treatment was given. A perusal of the entire gamut of the case would show that the complaint was lodged with an ulterior motive, by making bald allegations.  The complainant had also not proved her case by way of adducing expert evidence.  On perusal of the records and on the basis of the submissions, we cannot come to a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Further the shocking fact of this case was that after the death of the child, the body was handed over to the mother, and the body of the child was found floating on the river coovam, and as seen from Ex.B5 it is understood that the Father of the complainant viz. Thiru. Sekaran had been arrested in respect of the said incident.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

11.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

 

           

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                 R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

Exhibits filed on the side of complainant

A1                         Photo of child Yogeshwari

A2      26.08.2013    Information under RTI Act

A3      10.09.2013              -do-

A4      04.04.2014             -do-

A5      10.06.2014    Legal notice

A6      14.06.2014    Acknowledgement card

A7      06.11.2013    Case sheet summary

A8                         Typed copy of case sheet summary

 

 Exhibits filed on the side of Opposite parties

B1                         Case sheet of Baby Yogeswari at Kasturibai Gandhi Hospital

B2                         Case sheet of baby at OP hospital

B3                         First Information Report

B4                         Post Mortem report of baby

B5                         Report / letter by Inspector of Police, Tiruvallikeni         

 

 

 

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                 R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT