OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.120/08
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3)Md.Jamatul Islam - Member
Sri Abinash Deka - Complainant
Son of Late Jiban Ch.Deka
Resident of Village Hajo Ganesh Tola
P.O.Hajo, P.S.Hajo,
District –Kamrup,Assam
-vs-
1) Marwari Hospital and Resarch Centre, - Opp. Parties
represented by it Managing Director
Sati Joymoti Road, Athgaon,Guwahati-781008
2) Dr.Dipak Kr.Sarma
Resident of Rupnagar
Guwahati-32 ,Dist: Kamrup, Assam.
3) New India Assurance Co.Ltd., G.S.Road,
Bhangagorh,Guwahati-5.
4) International Hospital,
A unit of Assam Hospital Ltd.
Represented by its Managing Director
Lotus Tower,G.S.Road,G.S.Road,Guwahati-5
Appearance-
Learned advocates Ms. Bhabani Devi and Mr.Rituraj Dutta for the complainant No. 1 and Learned advocate Mr. B.M Choudhury for the Opp.Party No. 1 & 2 Learned advocates Mr.Raju Goswami for the Opp.Party No.3
Date of argument- 21.3.18 and 13.6.18
Date of judgment- 16.7.18
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Shri Abinash Deka against Marwari Hospital and Research Centre, Dr.Dipak Kr.Sarmah and International Hospital, Guwahati and notices were served upon them and thereafter, Opp.Party No.1 filed written statement on 9.4.14 and opp.party No.3 namely, International Hospital filed written statement on 16.12.2010 . During pendency of the complaint the name of the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Bhangagorh was made one of the opp.parties vide this Forum’s order dtd. 31.3.09 allowing the petition of the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., (Petition No. 125/09) but New India Assurance Co.Ltd. has not filed any written statement in this case. The complainant filed his evidence in affidavit on 25.9.13 and he was cross-examinaed by Opp.Party No.1 and 2 side on 2.6.15 and 10.12.15. Thereafter, Sri Dipak Kr.Sarma (Opp.Party No.2) filed evidence in affidavit for himself and for Opp.Party No.1 also and he was cross - examined by the complainant side on 23.9.16. Opp.Party No.3 side as well as newly included party Opp.Party No.4 neither filed written statement nor filed any evidence. After closer of the evidence Ld.advocate Ms.Bhabani Devi filed written argument for the complainant on 23.3.17 and Ld.advocate Ms. Banmita Choudhury for Opp.Party No.1 & 2 on 3.3.17 as well as Ld.advocate Mr.Raju Goswami for the Opp.Party No.3 on 12.9.17 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd.). Finally on 21.3.18 we heard oral argument of Ld.advocate Ms.Bhabani Devi for the complainant and of Ld.advocate Ms. Banmita Choudhury for Opp.Party No.1 & 2 and Ld.advocate Mr.Indrajit Barooah for Opp.Party No.3. But non appeared for proforma defendant (International Hospital, Guwahati) and fixed the day of 13.6.18 for additional oral argument of the parties and on that day also we heard further oral argument of Ld advocate Ms. Banmita Choudhury for Opp.Party No.1 & 2 and of Ld.advocate Mr.Indrajit Barooah for Opp.Party No.3 as well as the reply argument of Ld.advocate Ms.Bhabani Devi for the complainant and fixed the day of 29.618 for delivery of judgment and on that day we failed to deliver judgment due to over work load on that day and today (16.7.18) we deliver our judgment which is as below.
2) The case of the complainant , in brief is that his wife late Kabita Deka, after being pregnant for the second time came to Opp.Party No.1 Hospital for advice on medical care and Opp.Party No.1 was monitoring her health and prescribed her to take certain number of medical test and the said test were conducted and result of the said tests and routine check up were satisfactory and normal according to the doctor and he himself also had discussion with the doctor (Opp.Party No.2) about the health condition of his wife and in no point of time said doctor did disclose any physical abnormality or disease of his wife , but gave assurance that there will be a normal delivery. He also took his wife to Opp.Party No.2 on 1.9.07 for routine check up at Opp.Party No.1 Hospital and on his advice his wife was performing all household chores of a woman living in a rural area including taking care of her first child and she was healthy enough to take the strenuous journey from Hajo by changing two buses to reach Opp.Party No.2 ‘s Hospital and she did not complained of anything before Opp.Party No.2 and she was only brought to Opp.Party No.1 hospital for routine check up and Opp.Party No.2 after examining her advised that she must be admitted in the hospital for observation without disclosing any reason for such requirement. As Opp.Party No.2 was well known to be a competent Obstetrician and Gynecologist, he and his wife did not object to such advice and got his wife admitted in Opp.party No.1 hospital on 1.9.2007 and after her admission, medicine were administered and saline was also fixed to her and she was also taken to labour room and after some time Opp.Party No.2 suddenly came out of labour room and told him that, his wife has to be operated and than he was quite shocked hearing that thing having his wife was brought to the hospital in good health and on his querry Opp.Party No.1 stated that a minor difficulty has occurred for which normal delivery was not possible and asked him not to worry about it and assured him that the observation would be minor one and then he, being a layman and inexperienced in medical matters gave his consent for surgical operation of his wife. His wife was also administered insulin on 5.9.07. After almost two hours of taking his wife to the operation theatre a nurse told him that, he was blessed with a son and told him to celebrate for his said new born baby. But his wife and the baby were not taken out of the operation theatre and then he become too worried and he was informed that some complicacy has developed to his wife and more medicine is required and he and his relatives bought saline and medicine to be administered to his wife after operation . A nurse of the hospital told him that there was accommolation of fluids in the body of his wife and in the evening of 6.9.17, the doctor of the said hospital told him that the condition of his wife is critical and advised him to shift her to International Hospital and being compelled he admitted his wife in International Hospital on the same day and she had to undergo treatment there from 6.9.07 to 20.9.07 and on 20.9.07 at 11-50 p.m. she expired in the said hospital. He had brought his wife to Opp.Party No.1’s hospital with great hopes and expected that the doctors would monitor her health and to point out any problem that might have arisen during her pregnancy and during that period Opp.Party No.1 never disclosed any abnormality in the health of his wife. Her blood sugar, blood pressure and haemoglobin etc.were found to be normal before hospitalization in Opp.Party No.1 hospital on 1.9.07 and she showed no sign of illness and did the household chores till morning of 1.9.07 and took also strenuous bus journey from Hajo to Athgaon on that day and hence he has reason to belief that the health of his wife deteriorated after her hospitalization on 1.9.2007 and the subsequent surgical operation performed on her at Opp.Party No.1 hospital by Opp.Party No.1 and he belief that all the problems of his wife arose as a result of the wrong treatment and deficiency of service and the operation by Dr.Dipak Sarma (Opp.Party No.2) and later on he knew from the documents provided by Opp.Party No.3 that his wife had suffered multiple organ failure which is not a normal casually suffered by a patient undergoing a caesarian operation to assist birth of a baby, but Opp.Party No.2 instead of informing him about such fatal possibilities/ risk on a such pregnancy when questioned about the nature of the complication that necessitated the surgery for the operation stated that , it was a minor problem only and pursuated him to give consent to the said operation by withholding true information from the complainant and Dr.Sarma instead of informing about the complications mislead him by telling him that such was a common one. Thus this act of Dr.Sarma before and after operation in not disclosing the actual facts about the condition of his wife to him or his relatives in violation of medical jurisprudence not only amounts to deficiency of service and also violation of Right to Information Act,1995. Dr.Sarma has not disclosed about such complicacy with malafide motives and that pushed his wife to untimely death. The Opp.Party No.1 was approached considering his known expertise in the field of Obstretrics and Gynecology and hence it was the duty of doctors of Opp.Party No.1 to ascertain every parameter of health of his wife. If the operation was all required the doctors should have operated his wife taking responsibility with reasonable care of her health , but Opp..Party No.2 by not doing so performed the surgery in a careless and negligent manner for and also did not give any information to him and as a result he lost her young wife and also the mother of his children including the new born baby. . Non disclosure of actual state of health of his wife by Opp.Party No.1 is contrary to the principles of medical ethics and also amounts to deficiency of service. Had Dr.Sarma took standard of care and skill that of an ordinary common surgeon exercising ordinary degree of professional skill, then his wife could not have died in a untimely death and her life could have been saved , but due to their negligence his wife died. It was within the knowledge of the doctors about the possible nature of the complications but he simply took it in a casual manner and tried to make light of the serious complicacy evidently after the operation before which his wife was quite healthy. Had Dr.Sarmah adhered to the standard of care and skill of that of a ordinary competent surgeon exercising the ordinary degree of professional skill in operating and caring his wife, she would not have lost her life but for negligence of the said doctor his wife died causing mental sufferings to him and also that negligence caused lot of financial loss to him, by hussing up the matter of complicacy developed to his wife by Opp.Party No.1, Opp.Party No.1 committed negligence and deficiency of service and therefore, he being consumer of service of Opp.Party No.1 and Opp.Party No.2 as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986, he is entitle to get compensation from the opp.parties. As a Gynecologist and Obstetrician if Opp.Party No.2 could have taken due care and medical standard which is extracted from any ordinary competent gynecologist and Obstetrician, his wife could not have lost her life and he could not have suffered from loss of his young wife including loss of company of his young wife. All these negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opp.party caused sufferings physical and mental, to him and also to his children and that also caused loss of motherly love to his children. He also incurred certain amount in the treatment of his wife and had to suffer loss in his business as a auto rickshaw driver and therefore, he prays for directing the opp.parties to return the expenditure of Rs.50,000/- in the hospital of Opp.Party No.1 and the expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- made in International Hospital and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for untimely death of his wife and Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for loss of motherly care and affection of his children, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of company of his wife, Rs.33,000/- for funeral expenses done by him in performing the funeral rites including cremation and shradha as well as Rs.10,000/- as business loss to him. Totaling Rs. 6,83,000/-.
3) The crux of pleading of Opp.Party No.1 and 2 is that, Opp.Party No.1 is a charitable hospital of which Opp.Party No.2 is Obstetrician and Gynecologist . There is no cause of action for filing the complaint. There is no negligence and deficiency in service in providing treatment to the wife of the complainant . The complainant on 24.2.2007 alongwith his wife came to Opp.Party No.2 at Maniram Drugs near Madhab Mandir, Hajo for check up of her pregnancy and she was found to be suffering from PIH (Pregnancy Induced Hypertension) with 160/90 and she was prescribed medicine to correct the problem and asked to do further check up after one week but she did not turn up for check up as advised and she visited Opp.Party No.2 on 23.6.07 and she was found with BP 140/90 with complaint of pain /discomfort in her abdomen and her abdomen was found to be larger than it would normally be and as such she was advice to do USG and to come for check up after three weeks with prescription of certain medicine; on 14.7.07 she came up for check up and her body was swollen and her BP was on higher side and then she was advised to take rest with elevation of both the legs and take restricted diet and was also adviced for check up after three weeks; and she came again on 1.9.07 for check up and she was found in persistent of swelling of both the legs with BP 180/90 with EVIMA which indicates PIH and she was advised to get admitted at Opp.Party No.1 hospital for better management and for doing U.S.G.which was done on the same day and she was found with poli -hydrant muios (increase in liquor volume) may be due to diabetes and and she was advised to get admitted in Opp.Party No.1 hospital for further investigation and management and the complainant was very well informed and explained as regard to the same and complainant’s wife was referred to medicine specialists for further opinion and she was admitted in the same hospital on 1.9.07 at 6-30 p.m. with PIH and BP by 130/90 and admitted for glucose tolerance test. On 2.9.07 from morning to evening her BP was 140/90 and on GTT report dtd. 2.9.07 it was found –Fasting sugar-74/mg%, ½ hour-140/mg%, one hour- 183/mg %, one and half hour- 158/mg%, two hours- 102/mg% in two and half hours- which was at the higher side .On 3.9.07 her BP was 140/90 in the morning and evening and as per medicine her GTT at one hour as 189/mg% as on 3.9.07. On 4.9.07 in morning and evening her BP was 130/80 and on 5.9.07 at morning her BP was 140/80 and at 7-45 p.m. it was 150/86. All necessary medicines .insulin, injections were given to her on regular basis to tackle the situation. As the patient has developed PIH and Gestational Diabetes Manitus (GTM), Termination of pregnancy is necessary for her safety and safety of her baby and so drugs were administered in saline for normal delivery in the morning of 6.9.07 at 7-00 a.m. and on 6.9.07 in the morning her BP was 140/90. Sugar was present in urine; and at 11-20 a.m. her labour pain just started and her liquor was found to be clear and at that time antibiotic was administered . But around 1-30 p.m. her BP was 150/90 and at 2-15 p.m. she complaint of draining per vagina and on examination it was found that the liquor was maconeum stained that means fetus was in distressed condition and her BP was 140/90 and she was planned for C.S. for the safety of her and the fetus. As because of increased diabetes and BP termination of pregnancy was compulsory for the safety of the baby and as such efforts were made for vaginal delivery because first baby was of vaginal delivery , but it was not possible at such situation and sudden decision of CS operation had been taken after taking due consent from the complainant as because maconeum stained liquor discharged per vagina is an emergency situation i.e. this condition may jeopardize the fetus and as such planned for emergency C.S. and operation was the only option to safe the fetus and accordingly she was operated after explaining condition and consequences of the mother and fetus to the complainant and on consent of the complainant operation went successfully and a healthy male baby was born on 6.9.07 at 4-09 p.m. , but mother was having some respiratory difficulty and her BP was 90/60 at 5-15p.m. after completion of operation and immediately oxygen inhalation IVF with plasma expander was given with a information to Anesthetist and Medicine Specialist for opinion and further management; but at 5-20 a.m. she was having difficulty in breathing with BP 90/60 and every possible care and treatment was given to bring the situation under control and at 5-30 p.m. the Anesthetist attended her and she was found difficulty in respiration but her condition improved and oxygen inhalation was going on and her BP was 90/60 , but at 6-30 p.m. she was having difficulty in respiration with BP 90/60 and oxygen inhalation was continued and opinion of medicine specialist was taken and at 7 p.m., the medicine specialist attended her and found her having difficulty in breathing and pulse rate was increased but chest found to be clear and advise to sent her to a centre having Intensive Care Facilities for better management and hence it was decided to refer her to International Hospital for better treatment and shifted to International Hospital and she was accompanied with Opp.Party No.2 along with Dr.Dhiraj Das , M.D. Gynecologist and Medicine Specialist Dr. Rakesh Periwal so that she and her relative do not find any difficulty in admission procedure and other formalities. The wife of the complainant was very irregular in regular check up.
Opp.Party No.2 is a qualified medical practitioner having his post graduate diploma in Gynecology from Guwahati Medical College and trained in Laparoscopy from Kolkata in 2002 and was working in Marwari Maternity Hospital (Opp.Party No.1) since 2000 and working as consultant since 2004 and was promoted to Deputy Superintendent of Opp.Party No.1 hospital since 2010 and has been working in the said post till date and he has vast experience in Obstetrics and Gynocology and has also conducted a huge number of delivery and C.S.operation till date.
The opp.party denied the statement of the complainant that Opp.Party No.1 was monitoring the health of the complainant and under prescription of opp.parties doctor, the wife of the complainant was given number of medical test which was conducted , as a result of these test and routine check up were satisfactory and normal and the complainant being the husband of the Kabita Deka had discussed with Opp.Party No.2 about the condition of his wife and in no point of time did the doctor disclose any physical abnormality or disease in the wife of the complainant and assured the complainant that there will be normal delivery. The actual fact is that the complainant brought his wife to Opp.Party No.2 at Maniram Drugs near Madhab Mandir, Hajo for check up as she was pregnant on 24.2.2007 and she was found suffering from PIH with BP 160/90 and she was advised to take medicine to correct the problem and come for regular check up after one week but she did not turned up for check up after one week as advised but visited on 23.6.2007 and she was found BP 140/90 with complaint of abdominal pain and discomfort and her abdomen was found larger than it could normally be and she was advised to do U.S.G. and to come for check up after three weeks and medicine was also prescribed and she turned up on 14.7.07 and she was found her body was swollen and BP was on higher side and she was advised to take rest with elevation of both legs and to take salt restricted diet with a advice to come for check up after three weeks but she did not turned up as per advice but turned up on 1.9.07 and on that day she was found swelling of legs with BP180/90 with EDEMA which indicates PIH and she was advised to get admission in Opp.Party No.1 hospital for management and to do ultra sonography which was done on 1.9.07 and it was found that polihydramnions (increase of liquor volume) may be due to diabetes and as such was advised to get admitted in Opp.Party No.1 hospital for investigation and management. As such it is not true that on 1.9.07 she was healthy enough to take strenuous journey from Hajo by changing two buses to reach Opp.Party No.1 hospital and she did not complaint of about health before coming to Opp.Party No.2 and she was only brought for routine check up. It is not true that Opp.Party No.2 did not disclose to the complainant about the health of his wife and the reason of admitting her in Opp.Party No.1. It is not true that they said to the complainant that they had taken to sudden decision to operate upon his wife as a minor difficulty arose and for this normal delivery is not possible and there is nothing to worry about and assured that the operation will be a minor one and the complainant being a layman and inexperience in medical matter had given his consent for surgical operation of his wife and that insulin was administered to her on 5.9.07 at the hospital. It is not true that after two hours of taking his wife to the operation theatre a nurse came out and told him that he was blessed with a son and he was to celebrate the birth of new born baby. The true fact is that the complainant was not informed about the situation and immediately soon after delivery i.e. after about twenty minutes of operation he was informed that his wife has delivered a male baby. It is also not true that, after a long time of the birth of the baby his wife and baby were not out of operation theatre nor he was allowed to go to the operation theatre to see them and he made further enquiry about the health of his wife and new born baby with the staff nurse and he was informed that some complicacy had developed after operation of his wife and more medicine were required and his relative had bought saline and medicine to be administered to his wife after operation and that the nurse and staff of the Opp.Party No.1 told him that there was accumulation of fluids in the body of his wife, but not improvement was seen . The true fact is that after operation the wife of the complainant and the new born baby was shifted to observation room and suddenly she had developed respiratory distress, hypertension, techicardia (Increase of pulse rate) and decrease of urinary output and on examination her abdomen was found soft, uterus was well retracted and there was no vaginal bleeding and Opp.Party No.2 consulted with concerned Anesthesiologist and Medicine specialist trained in ICU and ressusitited of the patient accordingly and the patient gradually improved respiratory difficulty and the complainant was well informed that complication had suddenly developed and also regarding the improvement from time to time . It is not true that, Opp.Party No.1 ‘s doctor advised him to shift his wife to International Hospital for proper medical care as her condition was critical and he finding no wayout admitted the patient at International hospital on 6.9.07. It is not true that all the problems of his wife arose as a result of the wrong treatment and deficiency of service on the operation done by Opp.Party No.2 and from the documents given by International Hospital the complainant knew that his wife has suffered multiple organ failure which is not a normal casualty suffered by a patient undergoing caesarian operation to assist the birth of the child. As per signs and symptoms developed post operatively it was clear that she might have developed Amniotic Fluid Conbolism, post spinal hypotension and seplin Semia which ultimately lead to such type of fatal complications like multiple organ failure and both complications are very rare and no one could predict about the complications and the actual cause could only be ascertained on post mortem.
It is not true that, the complainant came to know that his wife was suffering from multiple organ failure and that Opp.Party No.2 instead of informing him or his wife about such fatal possibily/risk involved in such a pregnancy when questioned about the nature of complicacy that necessitated the surgery. It was stated it was a minor problem only and pursuated him to give consent to the operation by withholding true information from him and mislead him giving impression that the problem was a common one and the act of Opp.Party No.2 before and after operation in not disclosing the actual facts and condition of his wife to him and his relatives in violation of principles of medical jurisprudence not only amounts to deficiency of service also violation of Right to Information . Opp.Party No.2 did the C.S.operation on emergency to save the fetus and the mother with utmost care and dedication and the complication which developed immediately were tacled immediately with the help of anesthesiologist and medicine specialist . The act of shifting the patient to a superspeciality hospital was the need of hour and it rather reflects timely decision and carefulness and precautionary measure which was done in time but not a negligence . The Opp.Party No.2 performed his duties with great care and diligence at both pre and post operative state without any negligence and was present all throughout the operation and development of complications and did his best to tackle the situation with the help of anesthesiologist and medicine specialist and duty doctors and sending the patient to superspeciality hospital for better management and continuous monitoring nothing but his dedication and responsibility towards his patient. It is not true that, Opp.Party No.2 had performed the surgery carelessly and in negligent manner and he did not give any information to the complainant in a careless manner for which the complainant lost a young wife and a mother of his two children and also caused loss to him. It is not true that due to negligence and carelessness of Opp.Party No.2 the complainant lost his wife and had to suffer physically mentally and financially. Opp.Party No.2 did the operation carefully and deligently but sudden development of complication after operation he tackled the situation with the help of anesthesiologist, medicine specialist and on duty doctors and send the patient to Superspeciality hospital for better management of the complicacy and as such they had not committed any negligence in providing treatment to the complainant’s wife and as such the question of payment of compensation claimed by by complainant does not arise at all.
Opp.Party No.2 informed the complainant about the condition of the patient verbally from time to time and written consent was taken from him before C.S.operation. The complication of any disease can not be predicted by any doctor and sometimes complication had to be manage as emergency in case of rare complications. The operation was done to save the baby taking immediate care of post operative complaints calling anesthesiologist and medicine specialist monitoring by on duty doctors and Opp.Party No.2 himself and they send the patient to Superspeciality Hospital for better management of complicacy which reflects that there is no negligence in providing service by Opp.Party No.1 hospital and its doctors including Opp.Party No.2. The patient died at International Hospital on 20.9.07 after almost 14 days of her treatment there and as such complainant is not entitled to any compensation for death of his wife in the hospital. The complainant is demanding compensation without any basis and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) We have perused the pleadings as well as evidence of the complainant side and Opp.Party No.1 and 2 side and it is found that both sides admits that the wife of the complainant namely Kabita Deka had firstly being under treatment of Opp.Party No.2 namely Dr.Dipak Kr.Sarma outside the Opp.Party No.1 Hospital from 24.2.07 to 31.8.07 and she was admitted in Opp.Party No.1 hospital on 1.9.07 and on consent of the complainant caesarian operation was done in the said hospital on 6.9.07 and she gave birth of a male baby which was taken out from her womb through the said operation and on that very day she was shifted to International Hospital (Opp.Party No.3) and she was treated there from 6.9.07 to 20.9.07, but she died in the said hospital on 20.9.07 at about 11-30 p.m..
5) From Annexure-1 it is seen that on 24.2.07 the wife of the complainant was brought to Dr.Dipak Kr.Sarma at his clinic at Hajo and on that day on examination Dr.Dipak Kr.Sarma found she was having pulse-80/pm, BP-160/90 and she was prescribed to take certain medicine and was advised to come for check up after one week but she was not taken after one week, but she was taken after 14 days i.e. on 10.3.07 and on that day on examination it was found that she was having pulse rate-80/pm, BP-150/80 and she was also prescribed some more medicine and advised to come after one month for check up, but she was again taken to Dr.Dipak Kr.Sarma not after one month , but after one month eleven days i.e. on 21.4.07 and on examination she was found having pulse rate -80/pm, BP -150/80 and on that day she was again prescribed further medicine and advised to come for check up after three weeks but she was not brought for check up after three weeks but brought after two months and two days i,e.23.6.07 and on that day she was found having pulse rate -80/pm, BP-140/70 and she was prescribed some more medicine and to do test of blood for W.B.percentage, VDRS and HBSB and the test of R/R of urine and test of blood sugar and USG and advised to come after three weeks .
In the cross- examination the complainant admits that, the first visit of his wife i,e.on 24.2.07 she was having BP -160/90 and she had swelling of her both legs and she was prescribed to take certain medicines and again on 10.3.07 she was brought to Dr.Dipak Kr.Sarma and on that day, her BP was 170/80 and she was complaining of abdominal pain; and again she was brought to Dr.Sarma on 23.6.18 for Ultra Sonography and on that day her BP was on higher side and for swelling she was advised to take salt restricted diet. From these version of the complainant (C.W.-1) one thing is clear that on the first day of taking his wife to Dr.Sarma, i.e. 24.2.07 she was swelling of her both legs and on 10.3.07 again she was found swelling of her legs and again on 23.6.07 she was found swelling in her whole body and she was advised to take salt restricted diet and to take rest. Thus, it is proved that on the date of first check up and on the date of subsequent check up i.e. 24.2.07,10.3.07,21.4.07 and 23.6.07. The complainant’s wife was not in good health as said by the complainant and her body was swelling and she was also suffering from abdominal pain and high BP and Opp.Party No.2 Dr.Dipak Kr.Sarma was trying to control her high blood pressure and to decrease the swelling of her body but due to not producing her before him in the advised dates but producing in the delayed dates her swelling has not decreased and BP has not come down to the normal state . It is also found that on 14.7.07 it was advised to take her after three weeks for check up but the complainant did not take her to Dr.Sarma after three weeks but brought her to Opp.Party No.1 hospital on 1.9.07 delaying about forty five days and due to such delay the health condition of his wife was deteriorating and being compelled the complainant produced her before Opp.Party No.1 hospital (Marwari Maternity Hospital) on 1.9.07 with swelling of both legs and BP-180/90 which compelled Opp.Party No.2 to advised to admit her in the said hospital . Looking into these factual situation, we frame opinion that, Opp.Party No.2 was trying to control the BP and to decrease the swelling of the complainant’s wife by prescribing medicine and prescribing further medicine on the dates of her visit to him outside Opp.Party No.1 hospital , but due to contributory negligence of the complainant . He failed to control the BP of the patient and to decrease her swelling and that version of complainant that on or before 1.9.07, i.e. day of producing his wife, in Opp.Party No.1 hospital his wife was in good health is a false statement and therefore we hold that during treatment the complainant’s wife by Opp.Party No.2 outside the Opp.Party No.1 hospital, he did no negligence , but he provided treatment taking utmost care.
6) Now next moot question is that, whether Opp.Party No.1 and Opp.Party No.2 did the operation (Caesarian operation) on complainant’s wife carelessly and negligently and whether they committed negligence in providing treatment before and after the operation while the complainant’s wife had been in hospitalized state in Opp.Party No.1 hospital from 1.9.07 to 6.9.07.
Admittedly caesarian operation was done on the wife of the complainant in the hospital of Opp.Party No.1 by Opp.Party No.2 Dr.Deepak Kr.Sarma on 6.9.2007 on the consent of the complainant who is the natural guardian of the patient Kavita Deka. The complainant’s plea is that he signed the consent form for the surgical operation of his wife as he was supported by Opp.Party No.1 that a minor difficulty had occurred , for which normal delivery was not possible and that there is nothing to worry about it as the operation would be a minor one. In this respect , the plea of the Opp.Party No.1 side is that, the wife of the complainant was admitted in Opp.Party No.1 hospital on 1.9.07 at 6-30 p.m. with PIH and BP 130/90 with medication and advised for Glucose Tolerance Test and on 2.9.2007 at morning and evening her BP was 140/90 and sugar on fasting-74 mg , half hour- 140 mg %, one hour-183 mg %, %, 1 ½ hours- 158 mg %, 2 hours- 101 mg % and 2 ½ which was at the higher side ; on 3.9.07 BP was 140/90 at morning and evening; and on 4.9.07 at morning and evening her BP was 130/80; on 5.9.07 her BP was 140/80 and at 7-45 p.m. her BP was 150/86 and all necessary medicines, Insulin and Injection were administered to her on regular basis to tackle the situation, but she was developed PIH and Gestational Diabetes Melitus (GDM) for which termination of pregnancy was necessary and for the safety of the mother and the baby and drugs for normal delivery were administered through saline in the morning of 6.9.07 at 7-00 a.m. and on that day at morning her BP was 140/90 and sugar was present in the urine and at 11-20 a.m. her labour pain just started and at that time her liquor found to be clear and at that time antibiotic was administered and around 1-30 p.m. her BP was 150/90 and at 2-15 p.m. but suddenly at 3-10 p.m. the patient complained of draining per vagina and on examination of liquor it was found that liquor was neconium stained that means foetus was in distress condition and then they planned for caesarian operation for safely of fetus and the mother and that for increased diabetes and blood pressure termination of pregnancy was compulsory and as such effort was made for vaginal delivery , but that was not possible at that situation and at that time neconium stained liquor may jeopadised the fetus hence C.S. was the only option left out to save the fetus and operation was done after explaining the condition and consequences of the mother and fetus to -the complainant and complainant consent to the operation, In this case the complainant states that the health condition of his wife till the day of admission was good but in our discussion in the previous paragraph we have found that the health condition of the patient was not good and she was suffering from ADIMA (Swelling of body including legs) and was also suffering from pregnancy oriented High BP. The findings which Opp.Party No.2 found during hospitalization of the said patient from 1.9.07 to 6.9.07 is not specifically denied by the complainant and the documents exhibited by the complainant themselves support that findings. Secondly, the complainant adduce no evidence of other persons to prove his plea that his consent was taken telling him that the patient was suffering from minor complicacy for which a minor operation is required and believing that he gave consent to the said operation and Opp.Party No.2 never explain to him . The actual condition of the patient for which operation was a must. In such factual backdrop we must presume that whatever the opp.party side states is a true version and the version of the complainant is untrue. So, it appears to us that due to retaining B.P. by 140/90 and blood sugar (Fasting in hald hour 140 mg%, in 1 hour-183 mg%, 1 ½ hour- 158mg %, t hour-101 mg% and 2 ½ hour at higher side on 2.9.07 and BP 140/90 GTT at 1 hour 189 mg % on 3.9.07; BP 130/80 on evening of 4.9.07; BP 140/80 at morning and 140/86 at 7-40 p.m. on 5.9.07 and after administration of medicine the patient has yet developed PIH and Gestesitional Diebetes Mellitus on 6.9.07 at morning and sugar was present in her urine and on that very day her labour pain just started and her liquor was clear and at 1-30 p.m. BP was 150/90 at 2-15 p.m. 150/90 and suddenly she was draning her vagina and the liquor continued neconium stained which indicated fetus in distress condition and for that reason CS is only option for safety of the fetus and mother the main reasons for deciding to do caesarian operation to the wife of the complainants. Thus we hold that the ground of taking decision for doing caesarian operation taken by the Opp.Party No.2 are justified grounds and taking such decision cannot be said to be a negligent act on the part of Opp.Party No.1 and Opp.Party No.2.
6) It is admitted fact that the caesarian operation was done on the said patient on 6.9.07 at 4.09 p.m. and that was done by Opp.Party No.2 in consultation with anaesthesia expert and medicine expert of Opp.Party No.1 hospital and a male baby was born by the patient through the process. The complainant states that the operation was done negligently and that is why the patient had to suffer in the post operation period, but he is not explaining what negligent act was done during operation.
It is already found that the caesarian operation was only option to save the baby and the mother and it is also found that before operation the patient was suffering from pregnancy oriented high BP as well as pregnancy oriented diabetes mellitus and she was draining per vagina and the draining liquor contained maconium which indicates that fetus was in distress condition and the patient was also in danger state . Thus, it is found that the caesarian operation was done by Opp.Party No.2 with great risk with an intention to save the life of the baby in womb and the petiient and the risk was not caused by Opp.Party No.2 or by Opp.Party No.1 , but the risk factor was being borne by the patient herself from very inception of her pregnancy . So, we hold that , the complicacy which arose in post operation period is not result of any negligent act of Opp.Party No.2 and Opp.Party No.1 hospital and it is a natural sequence of complicacy which the patient was bearing from the inception of her pregnancy . Admittedly, in the post operation period the patient suddenly developed respiratory distress hypertension, tachycardia (Increase of pulse rate and decrease of urinary output) at 5-15 p.m. on 6.9.07 which the Opp.Party no.1 and Opp.Party No.2 failed to normalite even after providing oxygen inhalation, IVF and plasma expander and then Opp.Party No.2 called anesthesiologist, medicine specialist and trained person in ICU and resuesiticate the patient and patient showed some improvement but at 5-20 a.m. she was having difficulty in breathing with BP 90/60 and she was provided all possible treatment , but again at 6-30 p.m.-7-00p.m. the patient was having difficulty in respiration and BP beeping to 90/60 and than medicine specialist advised for transferring the patient to a hospital having ICU facility and then the patient was taken to International Hospital accompanied by Opp.Party No.2, Dr.Dhiraj Das, ND (Gynecologist ) and Dr.Rakesh Periwal MD (Medicine) and she was admitted in the ICU and was treated up to 20.9.07 and she was provided best treatment in the said hospital but she succumed to said complicacy on 20.9.07. These factual situations is not denied by the complainant. So the factual situations narrated by OPW (Opp.Party No.2) in his written statement and the evidence are held true factual situation and it infers that Opp.Party No.2 and the OPp.Party No.1 hospital provided all possible treatment to the wife of the complainant after operation also and while they saw that she will be provided treatment keeping her in ICU and then they send her to International Hospital as Opp.Party No.1 hospital has no ICU unit. So sending the patient to International Hospital by Opp.party No.1 hospital as well as Opp.Party No.2 can not be said to be a negligent act. But it must be said to be a utmost and diligent act on the part of the opp.party for saving the life of the said patient.
We found that in the cross examination the complainant clearly admits that OPW-2 nmely Dr.Deepak Kr.Sarma as well as Opp.Party No.1 (Marwari Maternity Hospital) have taken all possible care for his wife and provided all possible treatment to her and she also admits that Opp.Party No. 2 along with a team of doctors including anesthesia espert and medicine expert provided treatment to his wife in Opp.Party no.1 hospital. This admission suiggests that Opp.Party No.2 as well as Opp;Party No.1 hospital took all possible care of the wife of the complainant and gave all possible treatment to her in pre and post operation period. Thus it is explicit that neither Opp.Party No.2 nor Opp.Party No.1 hospital did any negligence in providing treatment to the wife of the complainant in pre and post operation period till she was shifted to International Hospital.
7) The complainant’s version in respect of the treatment of his wife in International Hospital at Guwahati is that International Hospital committed negligence in providing treatment to his wife and in result his wife expired . But he is not found specific about what way International Hospityal committed negligence during the course of providing treatment to his wife there. It is also found that complainant side adduce no other evidence to establish his allegation against International Hospital. So, In such premise we hold that International Hospital committed no negligence in providing treatment to the complainant’s wife after shifting of her from Opp.Party No.1 hospital to their hospital and the wife of the complainant has died due to complicacy of her health which is swelling of body, pregnancy oriented hypertension and pregnancy oriented diabetes mellitus and the complicacy which arose after the operation which is a natural consequence of pre-operation complicacy she was bearing and International Hospital providing all possible treatment to her has failed to save her life . So,it cannot be said that complainant’s wife has died for negligence of the doctors of International Hospital.
8) Summing up our discussion as above, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his allegation that due to negligence of Opp.Party No.1, Opp.Party No.2 and Opp.Party No.3 (International Hospital) his wife has died. Therefore, the complainant is not entitle to relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed
Accordingly, the complaint against all the opp.parties is dismissed on contest.
Given under our hands and seal on this 16th of July ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
