BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, 2nd day of March, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 8 / 2016
Priya, wife of Arumugam
No.16, 2nd Cross,
Iyyanar Koil Street,
Veeman Nagar,
Puducherry – 605 009.
………….. Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical
Education and Research Hospital (JIPMER)
Rep. by its Director
Dhanvathri Nagar
Puducherry – 605 006.
………. Respondent/Opposite Party
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.94/2010, dt.18.03.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.94/2010
Priya, wife of Arumugam
No.16, 2nd Cross,
Iyyanar Koil Street,
Veeman Nagar,
Puducherry – 605 009.
………….. Complainant
Vs.
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical
Education and Research Hospital (JIPMER)
Rep. by its Director
Dhanvathri Nagar
Puducherry – 605 006.
………. Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Tvl. U. Mohan Ilayaraja and A.K. Saravanan,
Advocates, Puducherry
FOR THE RESPONDENT/O.P:
Thiru R. Balasubramanian, Advocate
Additional Central Government Standing Counsel.
O R D E R
(By Tmt.K.K.Ritha, M.A., M.H.R., B.L., Member)
This appeal is filed by the Appellant / Complainant aggrieved by the order of the District Forum to enhance the compensation awarded. The District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed by the complainant.
2. The complaint in nutshell is as follows:
The Appellant / Complainant had conceived and taken regular treatment from 18.04.2009 from Respondent / Opposite Party’s Hospital. On 19.08.2009 she was admitted as an inpatient for delivery and made a payment of Rs.300/- to the OP’s hospital. The complainant was forced to deliver still born baby due to the negligent act and lack of due care on the part of the opposite party. The act of the opposite party had caused doubt on the part of the complainant whether the death of the baby was natural or unnatural. In order to ascertain the cause of the death, the complainant requested to make autopsy of the female still born baby. In turn, no autopsy was conducted and the opposite party claimed that the body of the still born baby was handed over to the relatives of the complainant which was strongly denied by the complainant. The negligent act and deficiency in service on the part of the OP had caused mental agony to the complainant and hence, the present complaint.
3. The opposite party strongly refuted the above allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party stated that on 19.08.2009 the complainant was admitted as an inpatient for delivery. The complainant 27 years old married since nine months was accompanied by her mother who is a retired staff Nurse of JIPMER Hospital. The OP advised proper rest and nutritious food since the fetus was growing at a smaller pace. The OP states that on 22.08.2009 the pain did not increase and taken a decision to deliver the baby as the complainant’s amniotic fluid started decreasing and if not intervened may result in complications. Further the complainant was given a pain relieving drug at 2.40 p.m. and the complainant had delivered at 4.35 p.m.. The delivery was conducted by a qualified Obstetrician in the presence of the complainant’s mother The complainant’s mother was informed that the fetal heart could not be localized half-an-hour prior to the delivery. Further the fetus was fresh still born and did not show any signs of mummification of rigor mortis and it was not a case of an infant death, but death of the fetus inside the uterus during the labour. Actually, this was a sudden fetal death which might have resulted due to strong uterine contraction or cord compression or occult cord prolapse or some congenital disorder in the fetus which might not have been possible to be diagnosed with the present day equipment. Further, the autopsy was not carried on the still born neonate as the baby was taken by the relatives from the institute on the same day i.e. 22.08.2009 at about 11.45 p.m. as per the records. The opposite party had taken due care and there was no deficiency in service or medical negligence and prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. Before the District Forum, the complainant filed 7 documents and marked as Exs.C1 to C7 and on the side of opposite party, 3 documents had been filed and marked as Exs.R1 to R3. The complainant Priya was examined on 24.10.2013 as CW1. On Op’s side one Dr. Desari Papa was examined on 05.03.2015 as RW1.
5. The Appellant / Complainant approached this Commission for enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:
The complainant’s allegation that the act of the opposite party in not handing over the still born baby has created suspicion in the mind whether it was a still born baby or the baby was dead or alive. Another allegation made by the complainant is that once the body was in the custody of the opposite party, it was their responsibility to hand over either the autopsy report or to hand over the dead body of the baby to the complainant. The opposite party has failed to give either the autopsy report or the body of the baby.
6. From CW1/Priya’s evidence, it is recorded as “It is true that I delivered a pre-term baby……. It is not correct to say that I was given the dead fetus before the relatives and never handed over by the doctor the dead fetus.”
7. In the deposition of RW1/Dr. Dasari Papa, it is recorded as “I am not aware of any letter pertaining to cancellation of autopsy and disposal made by the complainant’s husband. I am not aware who endorsed in the authorization for autopsy and disposal dated 22.08.2009……….The body was handed over to the relatives by the duty autopsy reception person. To the question made by the Counsel for Complainant that, the complainant or husband had not received the dead body of the still born baby, the RW1 stated as “I cannot say”……. We have given the body for autopsy after 5.00 p.m. on 22.08.2009. We will give still birth report to the attenders for handing over the body……. Ex.R3 is the document to prove the handing over of the body.”
8. Ex.R1 relates to authorization to take over the dead body, for partial / full autopsy and disposal. It can be seen that one Arumugam has signed in the above form as the authorised person. In the same form, there is another noting by the Receptionist on duty which states that “Patient not willing for autopsy – body handed over to relative with one Death certificate copy on 22.08.2009 at 11.45 p.m.”
9. While perusing records, it is observed from Ex.R1 (page No. 13/23) that “patient not willing for autopsy – body handed over to relative with one Death certificate copy on 22.08.2009 at 11.45 p.m.” and Ex.R3 (3/3) states that “body handed over to the relative on 22.08.2009 at 10.45 p.m.” and another noting states that “body handed over to the relative on 22.08.2009 at 11.45 p.m.” Also “she delivered a female still birth on 22.08.2009 a 4.45 p.m.” It is revealed from the above recordings of the OP hospital that there is disparity in the records i.e. in one instance, it is stated that the body has been handed over on 22.08.2009 at 10.45 p.m. whereas in the same medical record, in another place, it is recorded that body handed over to relative on 22.08.2009 at 11.45 p.m. Moreover, there are some corrections in the medical records and doubts had been raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant /.Complainant and for this, no concrete reply was given by the opposite side. Hence, these recordings are only manipulations and dubious one and cannot be considered as authentic.
10. From the whole complaint of the complainant, it is obvious that she not only had lost the baby, but also left a feeling of further loss by not knowing the fate of the baby as whether it was dead or alive and the cause of death, if it was a still born baby. It is like adding insult to injury. The condition of the mother is deplorable under such situations by leaving an indelible mark of disappointment and loss. There is no confirmation from OP’s side what actually had happened to the body of the still born baby except the recording at Ex.R1 (13/23) that “patient not willing for autopsy” and Ex.R3 (3/3) reveals that “body handed over at 10.45 p.m. and in another recording at 11.45 p.m. which is nothing but controversial and cannot be taken into consideration.
11. The pleadings and documents reveal that OP has failed to establish that the body of the baby was handed over to the complainant. Thus, the act of OP leads to deficiency in service and negligence and liable to compensate the complainant in monetary form for the mental agony undergone by her. District Forum had already awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. We are of the considered view that the complainant deserves enhancement of compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and sufferings for the negligent act and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this appeal.
12. Thus, as discussed above, the complainant is totally entitled for the following relief. The opposite party is directed to pay :
- A sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) for the mental agony, pain and sufferings
- A sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings.
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2017
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
