IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 31st day of March, 2012
Filed on 16.11.2010
Present
- Sri.Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.302/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Suja, W/o Binu 1. Kattanam Medical Centre
Kuttantharayil Veedu Kattanam P.O., Mavelikara
Komalloor P.O., Chunakkara Taluk, Represented by its
Charummoodu, Alappuzha Administrator Muraleedharan
(By Adv. Mawrice Vincent)
2. Dr. Kavitha, Surgeon, Kattanam
Medical Centre, Kattanam P.O.
Mavelikara Taluk, Alappuzha
(By Adv. N.Raveendran -
Opposite parties 1 and 2)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Smt. Suja has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The allegations of the complainant are as follows:- In connection with her delivery she had admitted in the hospital of the opposite parties at Kattanam on 22.6.2010. Earlier she had obtained the service of check up from the opposite parties’ hospital and obtained service in connection with her delivery through the 2nd opposite party of the hospital. She had paid fee for the treatment. On 23.6.2010 she gave birth to a female child by cesarean operation conducted by the 2nd opposite party. She was discharged from the said hospital on 27.6.2010. After 2 days she had felt with severe pain on the part of the surgery and inner portion. On 8.7.2010, she had contacted the first opposite party again and continued the treatment. 2nd opposite party had dressed the wound and not claimed any fee for the treatment and assured that it will rectify the pain and she had been admitted in the hospital for 4 days. The first opposite party had collected fee for the subsequent treatment, from her. But the 2nd opposite party had not given any medicine for the healing of the wound. Due to the severe pain in the portion of wound, she had admitted in the Govt. Hospital at Kayamkulam on 20.7.2010. At that time, it was further noticed that there was thread and puss on the part of the operation, which was conducted by the 2nd opposite party. After culture of blood it was further noticed that there was “ wound infection”. She was undergoing treatment from the Hospital at Kayamkulam up to 4.8.2010. Due to that treatment she had undergoing severe pain and sustained a lot of inconvenience. She was in the Govt. Hospital from 25.8.2010 to 2.9.2010 for treatment. Even now she is in the treatment of Medical College, Alappuzha by way OP. Even though she had contacted the opposite parties for proper relief, she had not obtained any proper relief from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the parties. Opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum. Version filed by the 2nd opposite party with a memo stating that the first opposite party is adopting the same contentions in the version, filed by the 2nd opposite party.
3. In the version of the opposite parties, it is stated that earlier the complainant had filed a complaint before the Hon’ble Human Rights Commission and that the commission had closed the complaint of the complainant by finding that there is no basis for the complaint after considering the report of D.M.O., Alappuzha. It is admitted that the 2nd opposite party had conducted a cesarean on the complainant as she was suffering from breach (the condition in which the baby is lying inverted). The complainant and her husband had given consent before the operation. Till her discharge, on 27.6.2010 medical care and medical attention were given to her. It is stated that there was no wound infection to the complainant during the time of post operation treatment till 27.6.2010 and that the wound was found healthy. 2nd opposite party had taken more reasonable care and cautions while doing surgery. The surgery was done under strict aseptic condition and suturing was done efficiently and carefully with proper materials, and that there was no professional misconduct or deficiency or negligence in the service of the 2nd opposite party. It is further stated that on 11.7.2010, the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party with the complaint of wound infection. They had given proper and sufficient antibiotics to her. It may be the lack of personal hygiene and wound infection can also be caused due to the lack of advised rest. From the very beginning itself, there was lack of personal hygiene from the part of the complainant. It is stated that the statement of the complainant that a swelling was found in the wound is false. The second opposite party has drained the puss from the infected wound. It is the result of an organism by the name “staphylococcus aureus is the cause of the wound infection, and that the said organism is one which is commonly seen on human skin. It is not the out come of the operation conducted by the 2nd opposite party. It is further stated that during the course of the said period, there is every chance to find those suturing materials in the wound. The opposite parties cannot be held liable for alleged pain and sufferings of the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is a post graduate degree holder in Gynecology and she is well experienced. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the side of the opposite parties and that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the side of the
opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation and costs?
5. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of her complaint and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A4 marked – Exts.B1 and B2 also marked through the complainant. The complainant has been examined and cross examined by 2nd opposite party. Ext.A1 is the discharge sheet of the first opposite party. It shows that date of admission ie. on 22.6.2010 and date of discharge ie. on 27.6.2010. The discharge sheet shows the details of diagnosis and the details of treatment given. Ext.A2 is the discharge card of the Taluk Hospital, Kayamkulam. The discharge card shows the date of admission ie. on 21.7.2010 and date of discharge ie. on 4.8.2010. It shows that wound infection was the diagnosing matter. It further shows the details of treatment given. Ext.A3 is the discharge card of the Taluk Hospital, Kayamkulam. As per the discharge card, 25.8.2010 and 2.9.2010 are the date of Admission and date of discharge respectively. It further shows the details of diagnosis and the details of treatment given. Ext.A4 series – (A4(a) and A4(b) – are the outpatient tickets issued by the Directorate of Medical education and outpatient ticket, Medical College, Vandanam, Alappuzha. It show the details of treatment.
6. Opposite parties have filed proof affidavit in support of their case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.B1 to B6 – marked. 2nd opposite party has been examined and cross examined by the complainant. Ext.B1 is the copy of the petition submitted before the Human Rights Commission vide dt. 1.9.2010 by the father of the complainant in connection with the operation of his daughter. Ext.B2 is the consent of the complainant before the 2nd opposite party in connection with her operation vide dt. 23.6.2010. Ext.B3 is the Enquiry Report of the post cesarean case done at the first opposite party. It shows that there is no material negligence on the side of the 2nd opposite party doctor in the alleged operation. Ext.B4 series are the Doctor’s daily IP record of the first opposite party. It shows the details of medicine given to the complainant in connection with the said operation. Ext.B5 is the original OP/IP Register kept by the first opposite party which shows the details of admission, details of the medicines prescribed etc. Ext.B6 is the Doctor’s daily IP record of the first opposite party. It shows the date of admission (8.7.2010) and date of discharge (11.7.2010) of the complainant from the first opposite party’s hospital and it shows the investigation of the 2nd opposite party and details of medicines prescribed. Dr. Lekha Madhan the consultant Gynecologist was examined and cross examined by the complainant. Enquiry Report marked as Exts.X1 and X2.
7. We have perused the details of the case carefully and examined the documents produced by both parties in evidence and the depositions of the complainant and the opposite parties, and verified the enquiry report furnished by the District Medical Officer, Alappuzha. The complainant was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on 22.6.2010, for delivery and on 23.6.2010 she was undergone cesarean and she gave birth to a child. The dispute is relating to the operation, which was conducted by the 2nd opposite party. On 27.6.2010 the complainant was discharged from the first opposite party’s hospital. But the complainant was readmitted in the first opposite party’s hospital again on 8.7.10 due to wound infection and swelling and severe pain occurred on her abdomen. 2nd opposite party removed the bulged portion again and the operated portion was regularly dressed. She was discharged from the hospital on 11.7.2010. But it is alleged that the pain occurred again in the abdomen. She had contacted the Govt. Hospital, Kayamkulam. On inspection it was found that there is cotton thread, clotted blood and puss in the operated portion. The severe pain was occurred due to infection. She was in the Govt. Hospital, Kayamkulam till 4.8.2010. Ext,A2 and A3 shows the above details. For the above treatment at the Govt. Hospital, Kayamkulam, the complainant suffered much pain and sufferings. It is alleged that the complainant is undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha even now. 2nd opposite party has stated that the surgical wound was sutured by using best suturing material. It is to be noted that the complainant was discharged from the first opposite party hospital without any irregularities. The infection found on the wound is an inherent risk of all surgeries. In order to prevent the infection, the antibiotic were given. The contentions of the opposite parties regarding the lack of personal hygiene cannot be accepted in such case. The second opposite party’s admission of the use of chromium catgut is caused the allergy and it followed by reaction and formation of puss from the operated portion. This shows that 2nd opposite party had not shown proper care at the time of operation. 2nd opposite party admitted that she had removed puss from the operated portion. It caused severe pain on the abdomen of the complainant. Exts.A2 and A3 documents shows that she was under the treatment of Taluk Hospital, Kayamkulam for better treatment in connection with the operation conducted by the 2nd opposite party. In connection with the operation, it cannot be denied that the complainant had sustained severe pain, mental agony, subsequent inconvenience and incurred financial loss for the treatment. On an overall readings of the entire aspects, we are of the view that the 2nd opposite party cannot escape from the liability of dereliction of duty imperfection and shortcoming in conducting the said operation of the complainant and subsequent steps. Considering all the aspects of this case and after verification of the documents produced by both parties and after a careful study of this case, we are of the view that the negligence deficiency of service and imperfection on the side of the 2nd opposite party cannot be ignored. So the allegations put forward by the complainant is to be treated as genuine and she is entitled to get a compensation from the 2nd opposite party and that the complaint is to be allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, for the ends of justice we hereby ordered that the 2nd opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant for her pain, sufferings, harassment, physical strain, inconvenience and mental agony due to the negligence in duty, imperfection and deficiency in service of the 2nd opposite party by way of lack of proper care while conducting the cesarean operation. We further ordered that the 2nd opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant as costs of this proceedings and 2nd opposite party shall pay the said amounts to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2012.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant::-
PW1 - Suja (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Discharge Ticket
Ext.A2 - Discharge card dated 4.8.10
Ext.A3 - Discharge card dated 25.8.10
Ext.A4 (a) & (b)- Out patient ticket dated 18.9.10 (2 Nos.)
Ext.X1 - Photo copy of the letter dated 23.2.12
Ext.X2 - Photo copy of the enquiry report of a post cesarean case
done at Kattanam Medical Centre
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Dr.Kavitha (Witness)
RW2 - Dr.Lekha M. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Complaint before the Human Rights Commission (Photo copy)
Ext.B2 - Consent from the complainant
Ext.B3 - Enquiry Report of a post cesarean (Photo copy)
Ext.B4 - Doctor’s daily IP record
Ext.B5 - OP/IP Register
Ext.B6 - Doctor’s daily IP record
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
