Case No. 6/2023   

IN THE MATTER OF

Smt Dipti Kumari age about 23 years W/o Dinesh Kumar R/o 185 Khijarpur Kaswa Arniya Talesara Sikandra Rao, Dihat Distt. Hathras                                                  V/s

1. Medical officer, Community health centre/primary health centre Sikandra Rao Distt Hathras
2. New Aaradhya Hospital, Bapuji Complex, Highway chauraha Boner, G.T. Road, Aligarh through authorize signatory

(Through: Advocate Ghanshyam Singh)

3. Rawat Hospital, Sasni Gate, Aligarh

(Through: Advocate V.P. Sharma)

4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Office Centre Point, Gulzar Nagar, Civil Lines, Aligarh

(Through: Advocate Farrukh Saied)

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.  The Op no.2 be directed to indemnify the complainant for damages  Rs.1500000/(Rs. Fifteen Lac only)
2. The Ops be directed to pay to the complainant RS.500000/ (Rs.Five Lac only) as compensation for harassment.
3. Cost of litigation Rs.25000/ (Twenty five Thousand)  

2.  (a) Complainant stated that she is a poor house wife and her husband is a farmer. On 12.10.2022 at about 6.00 PM complainant was admitted in OP no.1 hospital where she gave to birth a child at about 6.42 PM. She was discharged at about 7.28PM and referred to higher treatment on account of Post Partum Hemorrhage (PPH). She was admitted at OP no.2 hospital on 12.10.2022 where as per  diagnosis she was found to have been suffered from SEVERE ANAEMIA c VAGINAL RUPTURE. Her clinical history was as- c/ix bleeding per vagina c respiratory distress c irregular heart beat c dizziness. Complainant remained under treatment at Op no.2 hospital and was discharged on 16.10.2022. She was given treatment for 10 days but she could not get relief from abnormal bleeding despite of taking medicines for seven days as prescribed by OPno.2. She again visited Op no.2 hospital on 23.10.2022 and was admitted in hospital. She was found on further diagnosis to have been suffered from the same problem as above. She remained under treatment there and was discharged on 26.10.2022. Having discharged from the hospital she remained under treatment as outdoor patient. She had undergone medical tests and she followed up treatment as prescribed by OP no.2 hospital. Complainant could not get relief and the excessive bleeding per vagina could not be cured since the date of her admission at Op no.2 hospital. Complainant approached Op no.3 Hospital on 19.11.2022 where hysteroscopy was performed and on 20.11.2022 Dilation and Curettage (D&C) procedure was carried out and she was kept on medication for seven days. Complainant was relieved from the aliment of excessive bleeding per vagina having undergone treatment given by Op no.3 hospital by adopting hysteroscopy combined with (D&C) procedure to clear the uterus. Complainant had been suffering from abnormal bleeding due to retained products of conception (RPOC) of the uterus as revealed by hysteroscopy and the op no.2 failed to remove RPOC by adopting hysteroscopy with D&C procedure. It was clearly an act of omission and commission and negligence of the doctors of the OP no.2 hospital who did not apply reasonable degree of skill and knowledge in the treatment of the complainant.  The Op no.2 hospital is liable for the loss and hardships caused to the complainant and her husband by adopting wrong line of treatment which had fallen below that of a reasonable care expected from an expert in medical science. The complainant and her husband have incurred hospitalization charges for medical test, cost of medicine and surgery and also charges of conveyance, attendant besides the loss of earing of the complainant’s husband which may be assessed at Rs. 5 Lac. Complainant and her husband have also undergone mental agony pains and sufferings which may be assessed at Rs.5lac. Complainant also incurred expenses Rs. 25000(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand ) in litigation. Op no.2 hospital is liable to indemnify the complainant.       
3.  Op no1 has filed no WS.
4. Op no.2 has contested the case and in its WS it was stated that on 12.10.2022 complainant gave birth to a baby at Op no.1 hospital and she was admitted on 12.10.2022 at Op no.2 hospital in a serious condition and in prima facie diagnosis she was found to have been suffering from P/v/ bleeding severe anemic, vaginal Rupture, Respiratory distress, shortness of breath irregular heartbeat and dizziness etc. Complainant was provided treatment for vaginal Rupture and she under treatment at Op no.2 Hospital from 12.10.2022 to 16.10.2022 and then she was discharged with advice to follow up the treatment for 10days but she brought herself admitted at Op no.2 hospital on 23.10.2022 and in prima facie diagnosis she was found to have been suffering from vaginal bleeding dizziness etc. She was advised for USG and TVS. She remained admitted at Op no.2 Hospital from 23.10.2022 to 26.10.2022 and was discharged with advice to comeback after seven days. She was again admitted at Op no.2 hospital on 1.11.2022. In medical test presence of blood clots/ retained products of conception was confirmed. Her husband was advised for performing dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure but her husband pressed for providing treatment through medication instead of D&C procedure.  Complainant was given proper treatment and was discharged on 4.11.2022having improvement in her health.  On 10.11.2022 complainant was again admitted at OP no.2 hospital and in prima facie diagnosis P/v/bleeding and clots etc. were confirmed and treatment was started as per medical standards. Complainant’s husband was negligent in providing treatment to the complainant and his negligence proved hinderance in recovery of her health.    
5. Op no.3 stated in WS that the complainant visited the hospital on 18.11.2022 and it was told by her that she had undergone for delivery of a child on 12.10.2022 and since then there has been continuous vaginal bleeding. She was advised for D&C procedure having found retain products of conception(RPOC) in her uterus on performing ultrasonography and other tests. The complainant was operated upon for D&C procedure with the consent of her husband and she was discharged on 21.11.2022 with advice to follow up treatment for seven days and thereafter she never visited the hospital.
6. Op no.4  stated in WS that there is no negligence on the part of OP no.3 in rendering services to the complainant.       
7. Complainant has filed her affidavit and papers in support of her pleadings and Ops have also filed their affidavits and papers.
8. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
9. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?   
10. (a) It is not disputed that the complainant gave birth to child on 12.10.2022 at about 6.00PM at OP no.1 hospital i.e. community health center run by the government. Complainant had been suffering from the aliment of PPH and she was discharged at about 7.28 PM for higher treatment on account of PPH. Complainant was admitted at Op no.2 hospital on 12.10.2022 and as per her diagnosis and clinical history she had been suffering from vaginal bleeding. Complainant remained under treatment at Op no.2 hospital from 12.10.2022 to 16.10.2022 as indoor patient, and thereafter outdoor patient from 23.10.2022 to 26.10.2022, and thereafter as outdoor patient, from 1.11.2022 to 4.11.2022 and on 10.11.2022 complainant was also admitted for treatment as indoor patient. She was lastly provided prescription on 18.11.2022 to follow up the treatment but the aliment of vaginal bleeding could not be cured by the Op no.2 hospital despite of her undergoing treatment there from 12.10.2022 to 18.11.2022. Complainant was admitted in Op no.3 hospital on 19.11.2022 where she had undergone D&C procedure and was relieved from aliment on 21.11.2023  by adopting D&C procedure. It reveals  that the complainant under treatment at Op no.2 hospital for 1 month and 8days but due diligence was not exercised by the OP no.2 in adopting the line of treatment of the aliment. Complainant had been suffering from abnormal bleeding since the time of the birth of child and it was due to retain products of conception(RPOC) in the uterus which were revealed by adopting diagnostic hysteroscopy procedure which was adopted by op no.3 and thus OP no.2 failed to remove retain products of conception  (RPOC) by adopting correct line of treatment of diagnostic hysteroscopy with dilation and curettage procedure and it was clearly an act of omission and negligence of doctors of Op no.2 hospital. The doctors of op no.2 hospital did not apply reasonable degree of skill and knowledge in treatment of health condition of the complainant. Complainant and her husband had suffered monitory loss and hardships on account of adopting wrong line of treatment which had fallen below that of a reasonable care and standards expected  from an expert in medical science. The doctors of Op no.2 hospital ought  to have taken reasonable care and exercise skill with diligence for proper diagnosis of the cause of vaginal bleeding through hysteroscopy and other tests. It is deficiency in medical service on the part of OP no.2 hospital. Complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by her and monitory loss at Rs. 5Lac and also compensation for physical suffering and pains and mental agony at Rs.5 lac and also litigation expenses Rs.10000/.

11.  The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant against the Ops no.2.
12. The law laid down in the ruling V. Kishan Rao V/s  Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital decided by Hon’ble  Supreme Court on 8.3.2010 is applicable to the present case. It has been held in this ruling that one of the duties of the doctor towards his patient is a duty of care in deciding what treatment is to be given and also a duty to take care in the administration of treatment. A breach of  any of those duties may lead to an action for negligence by the patient.
13. We hereby direct to Op no 2 to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.   500000/(Five Lac) with pendente lite and future interest at the rate 9% per annum and Rs. 500000/(Five Lac) compensation for harassment and litigation expanses Rs.10000/ . 
14. Op no 2  shall comply with the direction within 45 days failing which op no.2 shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.