K.SRINIVAS V/S DR.A.PRABHAKAR - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/196/05

DR.A.PRABHAKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.SRINIVAS - Opp.Party(s)

MR.D.DEVENDER RAO

18 Feb 2008

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/196/05

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Prakasam)

1. DR.A.PRABHAKAR

SANDHYA MATERNITY NURSING HOME SAVARKAR NAGAR NALGONDA

BEFORE:

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD

F.A.No.196/2005 against C.D.No.37/2004 , DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, NALGONDA

Between:

Dr.A.Prabhakar,

Sandhya Maternity Nursing Home,

Near Savarkar Statue, Savarkar N agar,

Nalgonda. ...Appellant/

Opp.party

And

K.Srinivas, S/o.Chandraiah,

Aged about 30 years,

Occ:Private Employee,

R/o.H.No.7-6-48, Gouthamnagar,

Ferozeguda, Secunderabad. ... Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the appellant : M/s.D.Devender Rao

Counsel for the respondent : M/s. V.Gowrisankar Rao

CORAM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order:(Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)

*****

This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opp.party under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 to set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Nalgonda in C.D.No.37/2004 dt.25.1.2005..

The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum. He filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct the opp.party to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.12.2003 till the date of realisation . and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

Wife of the complainant conceived first pregnancy and when she was in seventh month she visited Dr.A.Prabhakar of Sandhya Maternity Nursing Home , Nalgonda and she was under his treatment . On 5.8.2002 she was admitted in the hospital of opp.party with labour pains. The complainant’s wife delivered a still born male child on 5.8.2002 at 6 p.m due to folding of umblical card around his neck. Immediately after the delivery the wife of the complainant was bleeding per Vagina (PPH). The relatives of the complainant donated blood for transfusion as per the advise of the opp.party .Inspite of treatment given by the opp.party the flow of blood was not stopped. Since the PPH was not controlled and upon the pressure by the complainant and his relatives, the opp.party permitted the patient to be shifted to Hyderabad. The complainant became unconscious by the time the vehicle reached Narketpally and she was admitted at Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital , Malakpet, Hyderabad on 6.8.2002 in unconscious condition and the patient continued to be in shock and ultimately expired on 7.8.2002 in Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad.. The opp.party has neither taken reasonable care nor exhibited reasonable skill in conducting delivery and controlling the PPH.. The opp.party has not administered proper drugs for controlling the PPH and due to lack of care resulted not only the death of the baby but also the death of the wife of the complainant. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.15.12.2003 to the opp.party demanding to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs . On 9.1.2004 the opp.party got issued a reply notice stating all false and baseless averments. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opp.party to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.12.2003 till the date of realisation, and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

The opp.party filed counter admitting that the complainant’s wife was taking his treatment from 26.6.2002 . She was admitted in their hospital with labour pains on 5.8.2002 and she delivered alive male child with umbilical cord around the neck . The complainant’s wife was bleeding per vagina . The allegation of the complainant that inspite of the treatment given by the opp.;party the flow of the blood was not totally stopped is not correct. The flow of blood was restricted and at times there was no bleeding and it is due to the pains taken by the opp.party. The opposite party has administered the required drugs and IV fluids and three units of blood transfusion was given to the patient for control of PPH. The allegation that due to negligence of the opposite party the complainant’s wife and child died is not correct. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint. .

In support of the complainant’s claim he filed documents Exs.A1 to A7. Complainant was examined as PW.1. .Dr.Maleena Raoof was examined as PW.2 on behalf of the complainant . The opp.party was examined as RW1. The District Forum on the basis of the evidence adduced and pleadings, allowed the complaint partly directing the opp.party to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards costs.

Aggrieved by the said order the opp.party filed this appeal contending that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law and against the settled proposition of law . Order of the District Forum suffer from infirmities and is not in conformity with the facts of the case weight of evidence and as such is liable to be set aside. The District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and has not at all considered the documents filed by the opp.party. The District Forum misconstrued the case sheet filed and went on to give a finding on assumptions and presumptions . The District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the complication in delivery if not attended promptly would have resulted in immediate death and all emergency treatment which was necessary for the complication that arose was properly attended to. . The fact that the patient was in Yashoda Hospital for 30 hours itself is proof that all necessary precautions were taken care of and attended to . The District Forum failed to take into consideration evidence of doctor of Yashoda Hospital . The District Forum erred in giving contrary finding contrary to the evidence , documents and opinion of the doctors. There was no medical negligence on his part. He prayed that order of District Forum be set aside and appeal be allowed.

The point that arise for determination is whether there was medical negligence on the part of the opp.party?

There is no dispute with regard to the complainant’s wife Sridevi admitted in the opp.party hospital on 5.8.2002 with labour pains and she delivered a male child who expired on the same day Immediately after delivery she was bleeding per vagina (PPH) and blood was transfused The case of the complainant is that the flow of blood was not stopped and the opp.party did not permit the complainant to shift his wife to Hyderabad and assured that he will control PPH and after persuasion he permitted to shift to Hyderabad and she was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad and after 30 hours the patient died. To prove the medical negligence Dr.Maleena Raoof who is a consultant Gynecologist in Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital who attended on the wife of the complainant was examined as witness PW 2 . The District Forum has relied on expert evidence of PW.2 and case sheet of Yashoda hospital Ex.C1 held that there was medical negligence on the part of the opp.party hospital and on account of that the complainant’s wife died. The appellant submits that PW.2 himself admitted in the cross examination that there was no medical negligence on the part of the opp.party doctor . This aspect is concerned we have gone through the said cross examination . In the cross examination PW.2 has stated that he has gone through the case sheet of delivery Ex.A7 issued by the opp.party hospital and he clarified that the ‘sudden loss of blood could have been due to atonic P.P.H.(Post Partum Hemmorhage He also took corrective measures by giving blood transfusion and injuctions. Prostadine . The doctor has done everything in his capacity to save the patient and as the condition was not improved he shifted to higher centre with supportive measures.’ It is also stated that the major part contributing to atonic P.P.H. is either prolong labour of the big baby, polyhydramnios or multiple pregnancies. He also clarified that there was no negligence on the part of the doctor while treatment given to the deceased. The District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.2 and given finding holding that there was medical negligence on the part of the appellant. We have gone through Ex .C1 case sheet of Yashoda Hospital . In the case sheet the previous history of the patient was also recorded as “patient started bleeding PV for which 3-4 units of blood transfusion was given However patient deteriorated & become unconscious and developed feeble respiration.”. The details of diagnosis, and examination are also mentioned in the case sheet . There was no mention in the case sheet about the medical negligence on the part of the opp.party is concerned. The District Forum also not considered evidence of RW1 who has also clarified in his evidence stating that after the complainant’s wife was admitted in their hospital after conducting necessary tests only he has performed the operation . The respondent contended that the case sheet was concocted for the purpose of this case. The submission made by the respondent is not sustainable. We have gone through the case of the opp.party party hospital . In the case sheet all the details of the treatment given mentioned. Even prior to admission of the complainant’s wife in the hospital she used to take treatment in the opp.party hospital and Exs.A1 to A3 are the prescription chits issued by the opp.party hospital. We have gone through the case history Ex.A7 issued by the opp.party hospital . As per the case history disclose that on 5.8.2002 at 11 a.m. she was admitted in the hospital on the complaint of labour pains and all the details of physical findings , investigations , diagnosis and treatment given were mentioned in the case history . As per Ex.A7 case history disclose that there was no medical negligence on the part of the opp.party The complainant has not admitted his wife in the hospital and after admission of his wife in the hospital he was informed and he came to the hospital and thereafter he along with his in-laws shifted the deceased to Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad . While shifting Sandhya Nursing Home staff also accompanied to the Yashoda Hospital where she was admitted and there 30 hours she survived and treatment was given . in Ex.C1 case sheet issued by Yashoda Hospital also there was no mention with regard to the improper treatment given in the opp.party hospital. PW. 2 doctor in Yashoda hospital who treated the complainant’s wife was examined to support the claim of the complainant . The District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.2 and given finding holding that there is medical negligence on the part of the opp.party hospital authorities. .

The respondent has relied on a decision reported in IV (2007) CPJ 341 (NC) KALYANI NURSING HOME & ORS vs. P.CHANDRA MOULI & ORS. In the said case “ patient admitted for full time normal delivery– baby delivered after giving episiotomy - Doctor neglected to suture episiotomy immediately – Heavy bleeding started - No planning for securing blood for 2 ½ hours – Patient died due to irreversible shock and death – It was preventable tragedy as per expert doctor - Negligence and deficiency in service proved – O.Ps not acted with due care or caution - Liable to pay compensation” The principle laid down in this case is not at all applicable in our present case is concerned. In our present case is concerned to prove the medical negligence aspect is concerned PW.2 was examined but he himself did not support the case of the complainant and the medical negligence is not proved. The complainant also relied on a decision reported in III(1995)CPJ 1 (SC) INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. V.P.SHANTHA & ORS.. In the said case it was held that the “Doctor and hospitals who render service without any charge whatsoever to every person availing the service would not fall within the ambit of “service “ under Section 2(1) (o) of the Act. The payment of token amount for the registration charges only could not alter the position in respect of such doctors and hospitals So far as the second category is concerned since the service is rendered on payment basis to all the persons they would clearly fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.” In our present case the complainant has not filed any medical bills to show with regard to the service rendered by hospital and any payment was made. But as the complainant’s wife was admitted in the hospital and undergone treatment and operation was conducted . the complainant is a consumer and complaint filed is maintainable

The complainant failed to adduce evidence that there was medical negligence on the part of the opp.party hospital authorities . As per the Yashoda Hospital medical record disclose that the wife of the complainant died on account of post partum hemorrhage. Dr. Maleena Raoof , Gynecologist in Yashoda Hospital who attended the complainant’s wife stated that PPH may not leads to death. The District Forum without considering the evidence of PW.2 , given finding that the opp.party hospital is not having infrastructure facilities and expert treatment and on account of that the patient developed complications and blood transfusion was given. The District Forum has relied on the medical literature wherein it is stated that the PPH can be controlled with the medical methods and injections to be given step by step. The said medical literature taken into consideration as the PW.2 who has treated the complainant’s wife in Yashdoa Super Speciality hospital himself did not support the case of the complainant . On the other hand the opp.party has clarified in his evidence that he has taken all precautionary steps and blood transfusion was also given to her and there was no medical negligence on his part. The District Forum has not properly appreciated the documentary evidence and given finding holding that there was medical negligence on the part of the opp.party. For the afore said evidence discussed and reasons mentioned the medical negligence alleged against the opp.party is not proved .