BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 85 of 17.07.2014

                                 Date of decision             : 28.04.2015

Smt. Rano Devi W/o Sh. Narinder Singh, resident of Village Amarpur Bela, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

                                                                           ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, through its Chairman, New Colony, Near Tempu

    Union, Nurpur Bedi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

2. Dr. Bhupesh, MD, Gyane of Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, New Colony, Near

    Tempu Union, Nurpur Bedi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

3. Dr. Naveen Kaplish of Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, New Colony, Near Tempu

     Union, Nurpurbedi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

4. Dr. Sonia of Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, New Colony, Near Tempu

    Union, Nurpurbedi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

5. Dr. H.S. Kohli of Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, New Colony, Near Tempu

    Union, Nurpurbedi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

                                                                                 ....Opposite Parties

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

Sh. Munish Ahuja, Advocate, counsel for complainant

Sh. Jawahar Chandan, Advocate, counsel for O.Ps. No. 1, 3 & 4

Sh. J.S. Minhas, Advocate, counsel for O.Ps. No. 2 & 5, who stand proceeded against ex-parte

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. Rano Devi has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’ only) for issuance of direction to them to pay her Rs.10,00,000/- as damages on account of expenses incurred by her on her treatment and also for the mental agony, physical harassment & financial loss suffered by her. 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that earlier, she was having one daughter and when she conceived for the second time, she started treatment from the O.Ps. No. 1, 3 & 4. As per advice of the doctors of Jiwan Jyoti Hospital i.e. O.P. No.1, she was admitted by her in-laws in the said hospital on 16.08.2012, and the doctors there assured them that there would be a normal delivery, but just after two hours, the doctors, namely, Sonia Kaplis and Naveen Kaplish i.e. O.Ps. No.3 & 4 respectivelty, came to her husband and told him that the case was serious and the CS had to be performed to save her life. They had taken signatures on a blank consent letter and O.P. No. 5 gave her anesthesia. In the meantime, her brother, namely Sh. Pawan Kumar, reached there, but he was not allowed to meet her. After sometimes, the O.Ps. No. 3 & 4 came to her brother and told him that operation had been conducted by the specialist, but there was continuous bleeding from the operated organ, which is a matter of danger to her life, and to save her life, there was need of blood transfusion.  Her brother requested the doctor to provide blood to her, and told that he was ready to pay for the same. Thereafter, the O.Ps. No. 3 and 4 told her relatives to take her to Raja Hospital, Nawanshar. Her relatives asked the O.Ps. No.3 & 4 to explain as to what had happened to her, but they told that it was not the time to explain anything, you should just shift the patient to Raja Hospital. Accordingly, her relatives took her to the Raja Hospital, Nawanshahar, but the doctors of the said Hospital advised them to take her to the PGI Chandigarh, saying that the condition of the patient was very serious and they could not treat her. Thereafter, her relatives had taken her to the PGI, Chandigarh, and was admitted there vide Admission No. 45304 and the doctors of PGI told them that her uterus has been removed by the doctor, who had operated her and there was danger to her life. She was treated at PGI Chandigarh for the period from 17.08.2012 to 12.12.2012, and remained admitted there in ICU for almost three months. For her treatment, her brother had to spend a lot of money and had also to take loan from his friends & relatives for her treatment. When her brother was unable to spend more money, on her treatment and when no other person was helping him financially, then he requested to the doctors of the PGI for her free treatment, who accepted his request, but the heavy cost of the medicines and her diet had to be borne by him. The O.Ps. No. 3 & 4 claims themselves to be Child and Gyane Specialist, but they are just BAMS doctors and by writing the same, they are committing fraud with public at large. Her brother had also given an application against the O.P. hospital and its doctors to the SHO, Nurpurbedi and when police had not taken any action against them, then her brother filed a case with Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, which is still pending against the O.Ps. No.1 to 4 along with other respondents. Her brother also applied for information under RTI about the O.P. No. 1, which was supplied to him vide RTI No. 7929 dated 02.05.2013 by the Directorate of Research and Medical Education, Punjab. Her brother had also moved complaint to Punjab Medical Council against the O.Ps. No. 3 & 4. Her brother Pawan Kumar is a carpenter by profession and he had to remain in PGI, as he was the only person to take care of her. Due to the said reason, he had suffered loss of business in the sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. He is also now visiting alongwith her to the PGI for her treatment and now it is not possible for her to take treatment, as she is a very poor person and has no source of income. She and her brother have spent more then Rs.9 Lacs on her treatment, which included surgery, medicines, and transportation charges to go to the PGI Chandigarh, due to negligence of the O.Ps. In addition to that, she has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss due to the sole negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The O.Ps. have removed her uterus against her wishes, due to which she cannot conceive now. She had approached the O.Ps. to compensate her for the damages suffered by her, but they flatly refused to do so. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On being put to notice, the O.Ps. No. 1, 3 & 4 filed written statement taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the same is false, frivolous & based on wrong facts; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’; that she has not come to the Forum with clean hands, mind, heart and soul and has suppressed & mis-stated the material facts, as such, she is estopped by her act & conduct to file the present complaint; that she does not deserve to any relief from this Forum; that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps.; that the entire version in the complaint is hearsay and a bundle of lies and that the complainant in connivance with her brother had also filed some other false complaints before various other authorities with the sole motive to force the answering O.Ps. to bow before their unfair demands. On merits, it is stated that the O.P. No. 4 is running a hospital in the name & style of Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, i.e. O.P. No. 1 and the O.Ps. No. 3 & 4 are qualified doctors for conducting normal deliveries. The Nursing Home being run by them also provides maternity services alongwith cesarean and related services and is equipped with the required instruments and facilities for the said purpose. It is further stated that Smt. Rani Devi, complainant, had taken treatment from Dr. Sonia Kaplish i.e. O.P. No.4, for delivery of her both the children. Earlier she had delivered one healthy female child through normal delivery and for the second time, on 16.8.2012 at about 10.00 A.M. she came to the O.P. hospital, for delivery,  when she was suffering labour pains. The O.Ps. tried their level best to effect the delivery in normal manner, but suddenly, complications arose as the heart beat of the child was sinking and the child had passed the stool inside, as such, normal delivery could have been proved fatal for the life of the child. In the said circumstances, it was necessary to carry on the cesarean section without loss of any time. All the complications were explained to the complainant and her family members including her husband and it was also explained to them that the surgery was necessary to save the life of the patient and that of the child. For the said purpose, well qualified doctors, namely, Dr. Bhupesh (M.D. Gyane), from Nalagarh  and  Dr. Harjeet Singh Kohli, (Anesthetist  MBBS, DAC)  from Anandpur Sahib were called to conduct the surgery. The team of the doctors had taken oral & written consent from the family of the patient and thereafter, conducted the cesarean delivery and the complainant delivered a healthy male child. However, after the delivery, the patient suddenly suffered PPH (Postpartum Hemorrhage), which is a very rare case, and occurs due to many natural and unknown reasons, which can never be attributed to any human mistake or negligence. Because of PPH, the complainant started bleeding massively, which could not be prevented inspite of best efforts made by the team of doctors led by surgeon and anesthetist, who had provided the best treatment, as per the set medical practice. In the said circumstances, they opted to remove her uterus by hysterectomy, without delay, to save her life, as it was the only option left with them. The contingency and the complications were explained to the husband and other family members of the patient and after obtaining their consent, second surgery was performed as a last resort, which was necessary to save the life of the patient, who was under anesthesia. During the treatment, blood was also transfused as per requirement, which was arranged by the answering O.Ps. of their own. After observing the serious condition of the patient and explaining about the same to the husband and other family members of the patient, and as per advice of the expert doctors conducting the treatment, the answering O.Ps. referred the patient to the PGI, Chandigargh, but the family of the patient insisted to take the patient to Raja Nursing Home, Nawanshahar on the pretext that they were having some better arrangement and understanding and had some known links in said Raja Nursing Home. The O.P. No. 3 remained throughout with the patient and got her admitted in the PGI and sufficient blood was also transfused in the meantime to maintain vitals. The family of the patient demanded the case history of the patient, as it was not possible in the night to get its photocopy, hence, the O.P.  No. 4 prepared a true copy in her hand and before she could copy the complete file and notes, the family of the patient snatched the said incomplete copy from her. On the very next day, the answering O.Ps. supplied Xerox of the complete file to the family of the patient, but the complainant had not produced the correct copy of the case file, intentionally, while filing the instant complaint. It is further stated that the treatment given to the complainant and the line of treatment adopted by the doctors was the best available treatment as per medical theory & practice and there was no negligence on the part of any of the O.Ps. Even there was no personal benefit to doctors in removing the uterus of the complainant, as it cannot be used or transplanted and the same was removed only to save her life. The complainant, who is head strong and mischievous person, in connivance with her brothers, had also filed some other false complaints against the answering O.Ps. before various other authorities including the complaints moved to SSP Ropar, SMO Ropar and also to Punjab Medical Council, with the sole motive to harass, humiliate and to extort money from the answering O.Ps. The Civil Surgeon, Ropar had constituted an enquiry team consisting of Dr. Mandeep Kaur(Gynecologist), Dr. Shiv Kumar (Medical Officer) and Dr. Sham Lal (Pharmacist), who after conducting the enquiry on the spot and perusing the record, have found the doctors to be innocent. The answering O.Ps. had also appeared before the Punjab Medical Council in connection with the complaint made before the said authority and narrated the actual & factual facts and the Council did not find anything implicating against the answering O.Ps. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with exemplary costs.

4.                None having appeared on behalf of the O.Ps. No. 2 & 5, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.08.2014.

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered her affidavit, Ex. CW1, affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar Ex. CW2, affidavit of Sh. Narinder Singh Ex. CW3 & documents Ex. C1 to C153 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 tendered his affidavit Ex. OP3/1, whereas the O.P. No. 4 tendered her affidavit Ex. OP2/1 and  the O.P. No. 5 tendered his affidavit Ex. OP4/1.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file, including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.  1, 3 & 4, carefully.

7.                The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the complainant was that from the ultrasound reports Ex. C5, to Ex. C7, it is evident that there was no complication and the delivery of the complainant was expected to be a normal delivery, but the O.Ps. No. 3 & 4, being BAMS, were not competent to conduct the normal delivery. Consequently, they could not handle the case of the complainant properly, and that is why excessive bleeding continued and the same could not be stopped even after removal of her uterus and she had to be shifted to PGI, Chandigarh in serious condition and remained admitted there for a long time. To this effect, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No. 1, 3 & 4 submitted that the O.Ps. No. 3 & 4, who are running the hospital i.e. O.P. No.1 are competent to do normal delivery, as is evident from the certificate Ex. OP1/7.

          As per the Certificate (Ex.OP1/7), which is issued by Punjab State Faculty of Ayurvedic & Unani Systems of Medicine, Chandigarh in favour of Ms Soni (O.P. No.3), it is evident that she is Bachelor of Ayurdevic Medicine and Surgery (Ayurvedacharya) and had studied the Ayurvedic subject alongwith Modern Subjects including Gynecology and surgery. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Central Council of Indian Medicnes, had issued a notification dated 30.10.1996 on the subject, which reads asunder:-

“Institutionally qualified practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine (Ayurved, Siddha and Unani) are eligible to practice Indian Systems of Medicine and Modern Medicine including Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics based on their training and teaching which are included in the syllabi of via courses of ISM prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine after approval of the Government of India.”

                   Therefore, in view of above referred certificate and the notification, the doctors having degree in Bachelor of Ayurdevic Medicine and Surgery (Ayurvedacharya) are competent to prescribe the allopathic medicines and to perform a normal delivery. Therefore, the objection raised by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable and is rejected.

8.                The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the complainant was that even the O.P. No.2 did not perform the caesarean section diligently, that is why even after removal of her uterus, she had suffered from continuous heavy bleeding, for which she remained under treatment in the PGI, Chandigarh for a long time. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No. 1 , 3 & 4 vehemently argued that in fact, after viewing the ultrasound reports Ex. C5, to Ex. C7, the O.Ps. No. 3 & 4 had opined that it would be a normal delivery. However, on 16.8.2012, when she came to the O.Ps. No. 1, 3 & 4, with labour pains, due to sudden complications, the caesarian section had to be performed to deliver the baby, which was conducted by a well qualified gynecologist i.e. Dr. Bupesh (MD Ganae), and anesthesia was given by an anesthetist, namely, Dr. H.S. Kohli,  i.e. O.P. No.5, but thereafter, due to unknown reason, she suddenly suffered PPH (Postpartum Hemorrhage) and in order to save her life, her uterus had to be removed, without any delay.

9.                In order to ascertain whether the O.Ps. acted diligently as per medical ethics, we deemed it fit to seek opinion of medical experts of the PGI, Chandigarh. The panel of doctors of the PGI has submitted its report dated 6.4.2015, which is now being Marked as ‘A’ for ready reference, to the effect that the management given by the doctors at that time, appears to be appropriate. It may be stated that from the medical literature downloaded from the internet, it is evident that there are many reasons for postpartum bleeding or post partum hemorrhage, and the most common cause for the same is poor contraction of the uterus following childbirth. It is also pertinent to mention here that before filing of the instant complaint, the complainant had even filed a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ex. OP1-9, who had referred the same to the Civil Surgeon, Rupnagar for further investigation into the matter. From the investigation report (OP1/13) submitted by Dr. Mandeep Kaur, Medical Officer, which was forwarded by the the Civil Surgeon, Rupnagar to the Senior Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 02.04.2013 (Ex. OP1/11), it is clear that the cesarean section of the complainant was done by Dr. Bhupesh (MD Gyane) and anesthesia was given by Dr. H.S. Kohli (MBBS, DAC), Anesthetist, after due consent obtained from her family members and when her condition became deteriorated and beyond their control, she was referred to the PGI, Chandigarh for further treatment. It has nowhere been mentioned even in the said investigation report that there has been any negligence in her treatment on the part of the doctors, who had treated her. If a doctor performs his/her duty and exercises an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, he/she cannot be held guilty of medical negligence, as held by the Hon’le Apex Court in 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 015 (S.C.), ‘Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors.’.

10.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, especially the expert report of the PGI, and the documents placed on record including the investigation report (Ex.OP1/13) submitted by Dr. Mandeep Kaur, Medical Officer & forwarded by the Civil Surgeon, Rupnagar, tro the Senior Superintendent of Police and also the medical literature on PPH (Postpartum hemorrhage), we are of the considered opinion that the O.Ps. have treated the complainant with due care & diligence as per the medical ethics and the allegations leveled by the complainant are misconceived & meritless and no deficiency in service on part of any of the O.Ps. can be said to have been proved. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

11.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated  28.04.2015                                                PRESIDENT

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.