Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

33/2012

Devi priya, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gunasekaan HospitalPvt Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.parasuraman

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :18.11.2011                    Date of disposal            :22.11.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

          PRESENT :       THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                       : MEMBER-I

                           THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.33/2012

 

DATED TUESDAY THE 22^nd   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

Devi Priya,

W/o.Balaji,

No.2/8, Padma Flats,

Jeevarathinam nagar,

Adayar,

Chennai-600 020.

                                                                                                       …..Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. Gunasekaran Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,

No.1, Cresent Park Street,

Pondy Bazaar,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

 

2. Dr.M.A.Lakshmi,

Gunasekaran Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,

No.1, Cresent Park Street,

Pondy Bazaar,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

 

3. Dr.Manu Lakshmi,

Gunasekaran Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,

No.1, Cresent Park Street,

Pondy Bazaar,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

 

4. Dr.Metha’s Hospital,

No.2, Mc.Nichols Road,

3^rd Lane, Chetput,

Chennai-600 031.

 

5. Kanchi Kamakodi Childs Trust Hospital,

12A, Nageswara Rao Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai-600 034.

                                                                                …..Opposite Parties

                                                                 

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s. N.Parasuraman, Periyasamy

 

Counsel for  opposite party  1 to 3              : M/s. Anand, Abdul & Vinodh

                                                                   Associates

Counsel for  opposite party  4                     : M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates

Counsel for  opposite party  5                     : M/s.K.P.Gopalakrishnan,

K.Priyadharshini, R.Iyyappan  

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,  :PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.315000/- spent towards hospitalization charges and to pay Rs.1000000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant married one Mr. Balaji in accordance with the Hindu Marriage and customs.  She suffered a miscarriage when she conceived for the first time in June 2010.  She conceived for the second time and she consulted the 2^nd opposite party attached with the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party examined the complainant and during September 2010 she prescribed various clinical and radiological tests.  The 2^nd opposite party informed that the date of delivery could be 27.05.2011.  From the time of first examination till her admission at the 1^st opposite party hospital for delivery, she was maintaining good health and her child in the womb also did not have any abnormality.  The complainant has consulted the 2^nd opposite party subsequently on 08.10.2010,30.03.2011,27.04.2011,30.04.2011 and 12.05.2011.  During all the visits the 2^nd opposite party prescribed various clinical test and radiological test.  All the tests revealed normal values only.  On 12.05.2011 the 2^nd opposite party directed the complainant to come again for consultation on 19.05.2011.  She visited the 1^st opposite party hospital on 19.05.2011 wherein she was informed that the 2^nd opposite party is not available and she had gone out of the country.  The complainant was directed to meet 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant on hearing the same suffered severe trauma on knowing the absence of 2^nd opposite party on 19.05.2011.  Enquiry revealed that she had left for US on 13.05.2011 itself.  It is pertinent to say that the 2^nd opposite party had clearly informed the complainant to be ready for delivery on 19.05.2011 since the baby was a fully grown up one.  The complainant was asked to come on 20.05.2011 by the 3^rd opposite party ignoring the 2^nd opposite party words.  Accordingly she met 3^rd opposite party on 20.05.2011 and she prescribed scan and urine test.  The AFT index is 8.2 Doppler study of the umbilical Artery shows satisfactory systolic and Diastolic flow.  Fetal weight was 2.481 kg.  Thus there is no abnormality either in the mother health or in the fetal health.  On 24.05.2011 she had developed labour pain and immediately contacted the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party directed the complainant to admit in the 1^st opposite party hospital immediately.  She was admitted on 24.05.2011.  At the time of admission for delivery in the 1^st opposite party hospital her BP was 130/80.  Uterus term, Urine Albumin Nil, Head mobile FH Good.  Thus there is no abnormality either in the mother health or in the fetal health at the time of admission in the 1^st opposite party hospital. The complainant stated that the 3^rd opposite party suggested LSCS as the indication is mobile head CPD.  The complainant delivered a male baby.  She was informed that baby is normal.  Around 02.30 PM the pediatrician who checked the baby informed that the baby had to be sent to 4^th opposite party hospital since it had difficulty in breathing and baby has to be put into ventilator.  It was informed by the doctors in 4^th opposite party hospital that the child is suffering from respiratory infection and couple of injection costing around Rs.45000/- cost to be given to the child.  That has been done at 4^th opposite party hospital.  Later on the doctors at 4^th opposite party hospital.  The child was admitted into the 5^th opposite party hospital.  Inspite of treatment the baby died on 11.06.2011 at 2.55 AM. The complainant stated that the 3^rd opposite party has performed the LSCS as the indication is fetal distress.  Fetal heart rate was not recorded by the 3^rd opposite party.  However in the discharge summary itself it has been categorically stated that fetal heart was good. The complainant stated that in the discharge summary it has been stated that the baby was shifted to 4^th opposite party hospital to neonatal intensive care unit in view of tachypnoea. The complainant stated that the treatment was not given by the 3^rd opposite party immediately after the birth the death summary issued by the 5^th opposite party categorically concluded that the baby had died due to 1. Pulmonary Hemorrhage, 2. Early on set sepsis 3. Phenumonic 4. Sepsia 5. Shock and 6. PPHN.  The 1^st opposite party did not have infrastructure facility to meet the Neonatal emergency.  The 2^nd opposite party without intimating the complinana left the hospital.  The 3^rd opposite party performed unwarranted LSCS and failed to give initial treatment for management of meconium stained baby.  Thus the opposite parties 1 to 3 are negligent in handling the case of the complainant and because of such negligence she lost her beloved male child.  The complainant has incurred Rs.315000/- for medical expenses.  The opposite party act causes mental agony to the complainant.  Hence they are liable to pay Rs.1000000/-  for mental agony.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 1 AND 3 OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF AND ADOPTED BY OPPOSITE PARTY 2:

          The opposite parties deny the averments and allegations mentioned in the complainant as false and frivolous except those that are specifically admitted and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties submits that the patient came 03.50 hours after the start of labour pain with fetal distress.  They found fetal distress through CTG and performed LSCS surgery within 35 minutes of admission.  The Meconium stained liquor has been aspirated by the fetus in utero due to which fetus was affected.  The fetal distress was due to the carelessness of the complainant.  On the other hand the opposite parties diagnosed that the fetus was in distress hence immediate LSCS was done after obtaining informed consent from the complainant.  The opposite parties deny the averments of the complainant and state that the Clinical findings were mobile head and Cephalopelvic disproportion and testing (CTG) also revealed low heart rate and hence immediate Caesarean section was recommended.  The CTG recorded-bradycardia indicating low heart rate.  The opposite parties stated that during LSCS Meconium stained liquor was found.  This was noted and appropriate steps were taken to manage the baby.  The hospital practice was to have a pediatrician on call for all deliveries which was followed here to. Appropriate suctioning and clearing of the airway was performed during and soon after deliver, stomach wash with saline, and oxygen via oxyhood was administered.  The patient and the child were treated as per established medical protocol by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 submit that the childs death was not due to their negligence or deficiency in service alleged by complainant. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party were qualified doctors in their field and denied deficiency in service on their part.

3.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 4^th  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The opposite party deny the averments and allegations mentioned in the complainant as false and frivolous except those that are specifically admitted and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party submits that they baby was referred to their hospital from 1^st opposite party hospital with respiratory distress following birth and was admitted to their Neo natal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) on 24.05.2011 The baby had passed motion inside the womb which got mixed with the amniotic fluid in the womb which is termed as Meconium staining of Liquor (MSL).  If the baby inhales this amniotic fluid into the lungs it can result in a lung disease called Meconium Aspiration Syndrome (MAS). The baby on admission 24.05.2011 was Tachypneic with an increased Respiratory rate and heart rate.  The respiratory distress continued and the score was 3/10 and the baby was put on IV fluids and antibiotics.  SPO2 was 96% on 5 litres of oxygen through hood.  Chest x-ray and blood gas analysis was done.  It was found in the next two hours there was progressive increase of Respiratory Distress with severe retractions. The chest X-ray also showed changes which indicated MAS.  Hence the baby was intubated with 3.5 size Endo  Tracheal Tube (E.T) and connected to IMV mode ventilation.  Intermittent mandatory pressure ventilation IMV in which breathing is taken over by the ventilator machine completely. After 2 hrs of ventilation the baby was noted to have ET (Endo Tracheal) blood secretion associated with desaturation.  ET end showed blood clot.  In such a case the ET tube is removed and reinserted.  This clot cannot be cleared by routine suction hence the usual practice is to remove the tube & reinsert a new one.  The bleed in E.T. is not a consequence of incorrect placement of E.T but due to the disease condition per se causing bleeding in the lungs which got detected through the E.T. tube bleed.  The baby required high pressure settings to keep the SPO2> 95% and injection/drugs to increase the urine output and reduce the fluid burden in the lung which was done and was administered a dose of surfactant to improve the lung function. Ionotrope support was given.  On 25.05.2011 also the baby had intensive and hazy infiltrates and there was blood stained aspirate from the ET tube and NG tube which required increase in ventilator settings and change of the ET tube.  The baby’s father was counseled about the condition of the baby and the need to administer another dose of surfactant to improve the lung function.  CRP i.e. screening the new born to ascertain the infection in the baby was done at 24 hrs of life was (high) positive(80)(Normal <6mg) and antibiotics were stepped up.  Ultra sonogram report of the abdomen and brain of the baby was taken and the report was normal.  In view of the progression of respiratory distress requiring higher settings in the ventilator PPHN was suspected and Echocardiogram was done and it exhibited severe PPHN high pulmonary pressures nearly equaling the systemic pressure. Normally pulmonary pressure is much lower than the systemic pressure.  To reduce the high pulmonary pressures, sildenafil was administered and dobutamine/dopamine was given to increase blood pressure. The baby having increased chest retractions and decrease of SPO2 levels which were immediately tackled and the SPO2 was brought to >95% by ventilation. In view of the high pressure requirements surfactant was given.  Thus chest retractions were controlled SPO2 was 99% and Xray showed clearing of infiltrates.  In a nutshell the 4^th opposite party followed all the protocol for treating the new as any hospital/physician would such circumstances. On 26.05.2011 the baby had a dip in the SPO2 which improved on bag and tube ventilation. There was no ET block no chest retractions and Xray showed clear lung fields.  ABG showed severe hypoxia.  In view of the constant high pressure ventilator requirements, labile saturation and severe PPHN the baby needed High frequency ventilation Nitric oxide therapy and ECMO.  AS the infrastructure mentioned above were available with the 5^th opposite party and were discussed with the baby’s parents and obtaining fathers consent the baby was shifted to the 5^th opposite party  hospital for further treatment. The 4^th opposite party gave the best treatment and denied all the allegations. Hence prayed the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4.ADDITIONAL WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 4^th  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

 The 4^th opposite party stated that the child was admitted at their hospital for 2 days between 24.05.2011 to 26.05.2011 and was shifted to 5^th opposite party for better treatment.  The 4^th opposite party stated that the delivery history from the death summary of the child issued by the 5^th opposite party hospital are being extracted that infant was delivered by emergency LSCS said to have cried well at birth.  Baby developed respiratory distress at birth. Further the child was in distress at birth and had developed respiratory distress at birth signifying that even when the child was being transported to this opposite party’s hospital the child already suffering from extensive respiratory distress. The 4^th opposite party further stated that a mere glance at the progress notes of the child at the 5^th opposite party hospital would show that the child had progressed well was stable and had improved on 31.05.2011 itself at the 5^th opposite party hospital on treatment. Further the childs condition deteriorated only after 05.06.2011 which was 11 days after discharge from this opposite party hospital. Hence there was no negligence of treatment of this opposite party hospital.

 

5.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 5^th  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The opposite party deny the averments and allegations mentioned in the complainant as false and frivolous except those that are specifically admitted and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party submits that even according to the complainant the 5^th opposite party has not done anything to complainant or no grievances against the 5^th opposite party.  Further the 5^th opposite party is not aware of all the averments and allegations made in the complaint and 5^th opposite party has got nothing to do with the compliant allegations.  Further submitted the 5^th opposite party is an unnecessary party the above complainant and the same is vexatious one intended to harass this opposite party for unreasonable bargain.  Further submitted that the child was transferred to this hospital and the child died on 11.06.2011 are matters of record.   Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service, medical negligence on the part opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the

    complaint.  If, so to what extent?

 

The complainant have filed proof affidavit of PW1 and documents Ex.A1 to A7 are marked on their side and written arguments.  The opposite parties have filed written version, proof affidavits of DW1 to DW4, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 to B30 are marked.

7. POINT NO :1 :-

          The complainant consulted the 2^nd opposite party who is attached with the 1^st opposite party when she conceived for second time during September 2010 and she was prescribed various clinical and radiological and her date of delivery was informed could be 27.05.2011 and she was maintaining good health and all the tests were also normal and subsequently the complainant consulted the 2^nd opposite party on 08.10.2010, 30.03.2011, 27.04.2011, 30.04.2011 and 12.05.2011 and all the tests during those days revealed normal .  The complainant was asked to come on 19.05.2011 when she found that the 2^nd opposite party not available and left the country and she was directed to meet 3^rd opposite party and the complainant was asked to come on 20.05.2011 and she was prescribed scan and urine test the result of which was normal and there is no abnormality in the fetal health. But on 24.05.2011 she developed labour pain and admitted at 1^st opposite party hospital where the 3^rd opposite party suggested LSCS as the indication is mobile head CPD and the complainant delivered a male baby and the baby was normal but around 02.30. PM the pediatrician who checked the baby informed that it had to sent 4^th opposite party hospital for putting into ventilator since it had difficulty in breathing and taken to 4^th opposite party at 04.00PM where it was informed the child was having respiratory infection for which treatment was given later the 4^th opposite party shifted the baby to 5^th opposite party hospital and the baby died on 11.06.2011 at 02.55AM inspite of treatment. The above said facts were not in dispute between the parties.

          8. But the complainant contended that in the discharge summary of the 1^st opposite party itself it has been stated that the fetal heart was good and if the respiratory rate is more than 60 per minute it would lead to respiratory distress and from the time of birth the respiratory rate was 62 per minute and the PH value and HCO3 were normal but the pediatrician has not properly given treatment to manage pulmonary persistent hyper tension and alleged that proper treatment was not gi

ven by 3^rd opposite party immediately after birth to cure 1. Pulmonary Heamorrhage, 2. Early on set sepsis 3. Phenumonic 4. Sepsia 5. Shock and 6. PPHN and further contended that the 1^st opposite party hospital did not have proper infrastructure to meet Neonatal emergency and 3^rd opposite party performed unwarranted LSCS and failed to give treatment for meconium stained baby and further contended that the 4^th opposite party has not put End tracheal tube properly and hence there was bleeding and clot and thereafter ET was removed and it was reinserted which amount to negligence in service and there is no allegation in the complaint against the 5^th opposite party and according to the opposite parties 1 to 3 the patient came 3.50 hrs after start of labour pain with fetal distress which was found through CTG and further contended that since the clinical findings were mobile head and Cephalopelvic disproportion and CTG also revealed low heart rate and CTG recorded bradycardia indicating low heart rate and hence LSCS surgery was performed by the 3^rd opposite party who is a qualified Obstetrician and Gynecology and have completed DA MRCOB who is competent to perform the surgery  and from the records it is found that the surgery was done by the 3^rd opposite party in the presence of a qualified anesthesia doctor and also in the presence of a senior pediatrician and further opposite party 1 to 3 contended during LSCS meconium stained liquor was found appropriate suctioning and clearing of air way was performed during and after delivery and stomach was with saline with oxygen via oxyhood was administered and the child was treated as per established medical protocol and there was no negligence on their part.  The fact of the low heart rate and respiratory distress is evidenced from the case sheet of the complainant which is marked as Ex.B1, it is further found that the complainant has developed labour pain at 08.00Am on 24.05.2011 but came to the 1^st opposite party hospital only at 11.45PM after a delay of about 4 hrs, it is found from page 8 of Ex.B1 the RR was 60 per minute and after birth the baby cried and responded well to suctioning and clearing and the baby was born at 12.25PM but there was recession in the health at 02.00PM since there was increase in RR rate and the baby needed extra oxygen and warm and the baby was found to have passed motion (Meconium) inside the womb which got mixed with amniotic fluid which is known as meconium staining of liquor (MSL) and due to inhaling this fluid into the lungs it can result in lung disease called Meconium Aspiration Syndrome (MAS) and in baby’s with MAS the normal drop in pulmonary pressure which gets reduced during birth may not occur which requires treatment and as per Ex.B9 then the baby was assessed at 4^th opposite party hospital the assessment sheet shows that the baby was suffering with MSL/ respiratory obstruction/ PPHN it is further found that necessary consent to transfer the baby by ambulance from 1^st opposite party to 4^th opposite party and then to  5^th opposite party hospital was obtained under Ex.B3 and B13 from the father of the baby the investigation chat which is marked as Ex.B21 and lab report and ultrasonogram report which were marked as Ex.B22 and B23 and the discharge summary of 4^th opposite party marked as Ex.B24 will go to show that the baby had severe meconium aspiration syndrome and severe PPHN and early on set sepsis and pulmonary hemorrhage and it is further found that the ET bleeding is associated with desaturation and necessary antibiotics were given to the baby and since the baby required high frequency ventilation the baby was referred to 5^th opposite party hospital on 26.05.2011 for further management and it is found from B2 to B28 that the opposite parties 1 to 3 has given adequate and proper treatment to the baby as per the well established and standard medical protocol and there is no negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 in performing LSCS which is highly warranted in view of the low heart rate found during CTG and further since the baby had increased respiratory rate and having Tachypneic and also having MAS and hence as per the standard medical protocol the baby was connected with ET to IMV mode ventilation and while doing so there was blood clot at ET end and hence the ET tube was removed and reinserted which is correct procedure since a blood clot would block oxygen to the lungs and the bleeding in ET is not due to any negligence on the part of 3^rd opposite party but only due to the  health condition of the baby for which 1 to 3 opposite parties cannot be held liable, it is further found that opposite parties 1 to 3 has acted promptly as per the standard medical protocol and without any negligence on their in giving treatment to the baby. It is further found from Ex.B2 to B28 as well as the discharge summary issued by 4^th opposite party the baby was given proper treatment from 24.05.2011 to 26.05.2011 in the 4^th opposite party hospital and the ET bleeding and clot was found to be not due to negligence of the 4^th opposite party as alleged in the complaint. It is further found since the patient is having consultation from September 2010 in the 1^st opposite party hospital knowing fully well about the infrastructure available in that hospital is estopped from contending that the 1^st opposite party did not have adequate facility to meet neonatal emergency further the baby was referred to 4^th and 5^th opposite party hospital only when it needed extra oxygen due to MAS and PPHN and that too it is found that there was no delay in transportation and referring the baby to hire institution and which cannot be said to be medical negligence on the part of opposite parties          1 to 4.   

          9. Though at the instance of the opposite parties 1 to 3  an affidavit of Dr.Subramaniam who was a senior pediatrician was filed as DW2 and according to him there was no negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 on perusal of medical records by him as he was partly cross examined by opposite party 4 alone and subsequently as he has not turned up for cross examination by complainant and further cross by opposite party 4 his evidence was eschewed  by this commission on 14.09.2017 and hence DW2 evidence has no evidenciary value.  

          10.  The 5^th opposite party contended that they are unnecessary party to the complainant since there is no allegation of negligence against them and further contended that the baby was transferred to their hospital on 26.05.2011 and inspite of giving proper treatment the baby died on 11.06.2011 and it is found from the death summary of baby issued by 5^th opposite party and progress notes of opposite party 5 which were marked as Ex.B29 and B30 series that the baby received ventilation with 100% FIO2 and nitric oxide in view of PPHN and septic screening was done and preparations ECMO were carried out and the baby had recurrent episodes of desaturations and worsening shock and bradycardia but inspire of treatment the baby died at 02.55 AM on 11.06.2011 at 5^th opposite party hospital.  It is found from Ex.B30 series that the baby was stable till 10.00PM on 05.06.2011 and deteriorated thereafter the nature of complication i.e. meconium aspiration syndrome is such that despite extensive medical treatment the child’s condition deteriorated and it is  found from the medical records that the 5^th opposite party also has adopted medically and scientifically recognized mode of treatment and the complainant failed to establish her allegations of the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the part of opposite party.

          11.  The Supreme Court has in several decisions held that to constitute a medical negligence 1. There must be a legal duty exercise due care on the part of the party complained of 2. Breach of the said duty, 3. Consequential damage resulting from the omission or negligence.  Further it has held that a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings: Either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed or he did not exercise with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. In the present case as already stated LSCS was done by the qualified 3^rd opposite party doctor in the presence of Dr.Manulakshmi and Dr.Ravichandrika and  Anesthesia specialist Dr.Seenivasan and also pediatrician Dr.Nikhil Sharma who are qualified persons having adequate skill and knowledge and the medical records prove the fact that the opposite parties have exercised due care and given proper treatment and thereby exercised their duty without any breach or negligence and hence there is no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Further the opposite party by relying upon the code of medical ethics para.4 page 10 clause 4.4 contended that whenever a physician is temporarily absent from his practice he can request another physician to attend his patient during his absence and hence the absence of the 2^nd opposite party and her journey abroad cannot be regarded as deficiency in service or negligent act  further the complainant herself has accepted to consult the 3^rd opposite party doctor without any objection and without having intention to go for another hospital and thus the complainant is estopped from contending the same.  There is no proof filed by the complainant to show that a sum of Rs.315000/- was spent towards hospitalization charges.  The complainant relied upon a decision reported in Civil Appeal No.227-228/2019, dated:09.01.2019 Supreme court of India but the said decision is not applicable to the present case. The opposite party 1 to 3 by relying upon a decision reported in R.P.No.208-209 of 2015 NCDRC dated 10.08.2015 contended that referring a patient to another hospital is not negligence. Further opposite parties 1 to 3 also relied upon 2008(1) CPR 380(NC) and 2008(1) CPR 111(NC) and contended that the complainant had not filed any expert opinion or extract of medical test to support his case and hence contended that there was no medical negligence.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 also relied upon the medical literature which were given in a type set containing page 1 to 170 to prove that proper treatment was given to the baby at appropriate time without any delay. Opposite parties 1 to 3 also relied upon I(2009) CPJ 263(NC) and II (2009) CPJ 48(SC).  In the light of above said discussion it is found that the complainant failed to prove medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

12. POINT NO :2 :-

                   Based on findings given to Point no.1 there is no medical negligence or deficiency of service,  on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled for refund of Rs.315000/- as claimed in the complaint or compensation for mental agony. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

               In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No cost. 

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 22^nd  day of  November 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF EVIDENCES OF COMPLAINANT SIDE:

PW1-Devi Priya

LIST OF EVIDENCES OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE:

DW1-Dr.Manu Lakshmi

DW2-Dr.S.Subramanian(Eschewed )

DW3-Dilip Metha

DW4-Dr.Aandal

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL            Antenatal Record

Ex.A2 dated NIL            Discharge Summary issued by the first opposite party

Ex.A3 dated NIL            Discharge Summary issued by the fourth opposite party

Ex.A4 dated NIL            Death Certificate issued by the fifth opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 22.07.2011          Advocate Notice

Ex.A6 dated NIL            Reply Notice

 

Ex.A7 dated 27.04.2011   Obstetric Scan.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF  1^st, 2^nd , 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Copy of case sheet of the complainant in 1^st opposite party hospital

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF  4^th  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B2 dated 24.05.2011          Reference Letter from 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.B3 dated  24.05.2011         Consent to transfer the baby by Ambulance from the 1^st opposite party hospital to the 4^th opposite party Hospital

Ex.B4 dated 24.05.2011          Neonatal Transport Form

 

Ex.B5 dated 24.05.2011          Admission Slip

 

Ex.B6 dated 24.05.2011          Patient Registration Information

 

Ex.B7 dated 24.05.2011          General Consent for admission

 

Ex.B8 dated  24.05.2011         Consent for Management at Intensive Care Units

 

Ex.B9 dated 24.05.2011          New Born Initial Assessment sheet

 

Ex.B10 dated 24.05.2011        Nursing Initial Assessment

 

Ex.B11 dated 24.05.2011        HIC Patient LOG

 

Ex.B12 dated 24.05.2011        Progress Notes – Doctors

               To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.B13 dated 26.05.2011        Consent to shift the baby to the 5^th opposite party hospital recorded in progress notes

 

Ex.B14 dated 25.05.2011        Doctors Orders (NICH)

To 26.05.2011

 

 

Ex.15 dated 25.05.2011          New  Born Vitals Chart

            To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.B16 dated 25.05.2011        Intravenous Therapy & Feed Chart

             To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.B17 dated 25.05.2011        Ventilator chart

             To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.B18 dated 25.05.2011        Progress Notes - Nurses

              To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.B19 dated 24.05.2011        Check List

              To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.B20 dated 24.05.2011        Instruction Sheet

              To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.21 dated 24.05.2011          Investigation Chart

           To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.A22 dated 24.05.2011        Lab Reports

              To 26.05.2011

 

Ex.A23 25.05.2011                 Ultrasonogram Reports

 

Ex.A24 NIL                             Discharge Summary

 

Ex.B25 dated 31.05.2011        MRD Deficiency Check List IP Record

 

Ex.B26 dated NIL                    In patient Record Face Sheet

 

Ex.B27 dated NIL                    Record of X-rays taken

 

Ex.B28 dated NIL                    Record of Reports of patient handed over to the Attenders

 

Ex.B29 dated 24.05.2011        Death Summary of baby issued by opposite parties

 

Ex.B30 dated 24.05.2011        Progress Notes of 5^th opposite party

 

 

 

MEMBER  I                MEMBER  II                                 PRESIDENT