Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/499

Ekjot Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shilpy Nursing Home - Opp.Party(s)

Sharman Sehgal Adv.

26 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:499 dated 25.08.2015.                                                         Date of decision: 26.04.2022. 

 

Ekjot Kaur aged about 1 year daughter of Shri Shalender Singh, resident of House No.830, St. No.6, Near Govt. High School, Manjit Nagar, Ludhiana through her grandfather, guardian and next friend Shri Baldev Singh aged about 51 years son of Late S. Amrik Singh, resident of House No.830, St. No.6, Near Govt. High School, Manjit Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Shilpy Nursing Home, B-15-393/2, Gill Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana through Dr. Shilpy Khanna,
2. Dr. Shilpy Khanna, C/o. M/s. Shilpy Nursing Home, B-15-393/2, Gill Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana
3. Dr. Gaurav Khanna, C/o. M/s. Shilpy Nursing Home, B-15-393/2, Gill Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana
4. Dr.Mrs. S. Aggarwal, C/o. M/s. Shilpy Nursing Home, B-15-393/2, Gill Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana.
5. United India Assurance Company Ltd., 60, Janpath, New Delhi through its Manager.                                                                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,               1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Exparte.

For OP5                         :         Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                This compliant has been filed by minor Ekjot Kaur through her grandfather, natural guardian and next friend Sh. Baldev Singh on the allegations that her mother Chandeep Kaur  was pregnant and she was admitted in OP1 hospital where OP2 suggested that a caesarian has to be performed as normal delivery was not possible. As per the advice of OP2, the husband of Chandeep Kaur agreed for the V operation which was performed by a team of doctors headed by OP2, being the main surgeon. Following caesarian, the complainant was born on 24.06.2014.Chandeep Kaur was discharged after two days and the doctor told father of Chandeep Kaur that she would be fine in a couple of days as operation had been performed successfully.

2.                It is further alleged in the complaint that actually Chandeep Kaur was not well from the day of caesarian. She was suffering from pain in her abdomen and leg and after sometime it became severe. The father of Chandeep Kaur took her to OP1 for checkup on 05.07.2014 where she was checked up and given some medicines and ointment and her stitches were also removed. However, Chandeep Kaur continuously kept suffering from pain and after sometime her digestive system became weak. She would vomit after eating anything and her condition kept deteriorating. As a result, she was admitted in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital on 28.01.2015 where it was disclosed that she has been suffering due to septic resulting from caesarian operation performed by OP2 to OP4. By the time, she was admitted in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, the septic spread in the entire body. Chandeep Kaur remained admitted in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital till 11.02.2015. Her MRI was also done on Delta Heart Centre Pvt. Ltd. on 03.02.2015 at the time of admission under the directions of the doctors of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital.

3.                It is further alleged that since the condition of Chandeep Kaur kept deteriorating, she was taken to Suman Hospital on 22.03.2015 from where she was referred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana where she remained admitted from 22.03.2015 to 24.03.2015. Even in the DMC Hospital, she was diagnosed with some problem i.e. septic due to cesarean operation. Eventually, Chandeep Kaur was taken to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh where she died on 26.03.2015.

4.                It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant lost her mother due to negligence on the part of the OPs and died due to severe septic in her body which happened at the time of her cesarean operation performed negligently y OP2 to OP4. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was spent on the treatment of septic which was the result of the cesarean operation performed by the OPs. Thus, it is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation  and damages on account of deficiency in service.

5.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 to OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not covered under the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as in the entire complaint there is no pleading regarding payment of charges by the complainant or her grandfather through whom the present complaint has been filed. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib Hospital, Ludhiana, Bansal Hospital, Ludhiana, DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana, Suman Hospital, Delta Heart Centre P Ltd., PGI, Chandigarh and Nehru Hospital. According to OP1 to OP3, it has been alleged in the complaint that the deceased was taken to these hospitals before she finally died at PGI so the production of record of the said hospitals is very essential for the proper adjudication of the case.

6.                OP1 to OP3 have further pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as against OP1 to OP3 as there has been no negligence on the part of the OPs in caring and giving treatment to the deceased Chandeep Kaur. The so called septic was not result of the cesarean operation performed by OP1 and OP2. The deceased was never treated for the septic by the OPs as it was non-existing at the time she remained admitted with the OPs and all tests and reports as well as TLC tests were found to be in order when Chandeep Kaur was discharged from the hospital of OPs. According to OP1 to OP3, at the time of discharge on 26.06.2014, OP1 informed the husband of the deceased to visit again on 01.07.2014 for ASD and thereafter, on 04.07.2014 for removal of stitches. Even at that time, the deceased was normal and healthy. Her BP was recorded to 110/70 and temperature 98f and she was prescribed some medicine on 01.07.2014. Thereafter, on 05.07.2014 Chandeep Kaur was examined by OP1 and wounds were found to be healthy as the stitches were removed and the deceased was prescribed some medicine for 10 days which was Oint metro kind locally, Cadpro powder, C-sonadyn-Ly, T volflan Plus, Syp. Asthakind. The deceased was further advised to wear abdominal belt for better care and protection. After 05.07.2014, the deceased never visited the hospital of OP1 to OP3 for any complication or infection etc. 

7.                It has further been pleaded by OP1 to OP3 that it has been found from the documents relied upon by the complainant that the deceased took some treatment from Bansal Hospital, Abdulanpur Basti, Ludhiana from 03.12.2014 onwards for complaint of fever of 10 days after about 4½ months of the cesarean operation on24.06.2014. She was found to be having widel as well as chest infection when she was treated by Dr. Rita Bansal, BAMS (Pb) but no septic was observed by the said doctor during the treatment of the deceased which simply means that even at that time no septic was in existence. The complainant has deliberately not mentioned these facts in the complaint regarding the visit of the deceased to Bansal Hospital, Ludhiana. Thus, the complainant has concealed the material facts while filing the complaint. Thereafter, the deceased visited Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Ludhiana on 28.01.2015 where MRI was done on 03.02.2015. She was diagnosed as infected TO Mas absecess, minimal pelvic ascites with pendometrical deposits at scar sites and, thereafter, on 11.02.2015 cytology report from left adenexal mass revealed no inflammation/no malignancy. USG Uterus Adnexa report dated 16.02.2015 disclosed uterus normal as well as no fluid was seen. As per discharge certificate for the period from 28.01.2015 to 11.02.2015, the patient was discharged in stable condition. Thereafter, deceased Chandeep Kaur visited Suman Hospital on 22.03.2015 where TLC was shown as 136 MM but no other hospital record is placed on record by the complainant for revealing the real reason of visiting the said hospital. The deceased visited DMC, Ludhiana on 24.03.2015 where she was admitted in neurology department. As per dama summary showing diagnosis B/L to mass/abscess with chronic meningitis with vasculitis infl. B/L MCA with sepsis with shock with RF with poor GCS but instead of going ahead with the proper treatment, she was got discharged from the hospital which was negligent act of the deceased for deflecting treatment for better care. As per medical science journal of the National Medical association vol 78, NO.10,1986 by Newton G, Osborne, MD, PhD Syracuse, New York disclosed under the head ‘Summary’ that if a tubo-ovarian abscess is suspected, the patient must be admitted to the hospital and a protocol for management that assures the best outcome followed. A reasonable approach requires immediate surgery if non invasive diagnostic tests and clinical evaluations suggest rupture of the abscess or an uncertain diagnosis. Despite diagnosed by the doctors of the GTB & DMC hospital, the deceased wasted valuable time for not taking treatment for the infection TO Mas abscess etc. from the date of knowledge on 03.02.2015. It is therefore, evident that the ingredients were developed and diagnosed after the period of at least after 5-7 months  but despite definite knowledge, no adequate treatment was taken by the deceased which resulted in accretive of infection in the abdomen etc. Thus, no negligence is attributable to the OPs that the infection was present at the time of discharge from the hospital of OP1. At Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, at the time of admission on 28.01.2015 the deceased was diagnosed with infected TO Mass abscess, minimal pelvic ascites with pendometric deposits at scar sites. Thereafter, on 11.02.2015, cytology report from left adenexal mass revealed no inflammation/no malignancy. USG Uterus Adnexa report dated 16.02.2015 disclosed uterus normal as well as no fluid was seen. Thus, the correctness of medical record of hospitals has not been challenged in the complaint and even otherwise, death happened after 11 months of discharge from the hospital of the OPs. It is further stated in the medical certificate of cause of death that the death was natural and, therefore, sources of infection which led to septic shock cannot be observed at a belated stage and that too retrospectively. Therefore, no act of the OPs can be equated with negligence while treating the patient.

8.                On merits, it has been admitted that cesarean operation was performed by OP2 to OP4 as normal delivery was not possible. According to the OPs, the deceased was discharged after two days and at the time of discharge, husband of the deceased was informed to bring her to hospital on 01.07.2014 for ASD and thereafter on 04.07.2014 for FU for removal of stitches and at that time, the deceased was normal and healthy. Even at the time of her visit on 01.07.2014, the deceased was even normal and healthy. It has been denied if the deceased was not well from the date of cesarean operation nor she was suffering from pain in her abdomen and legs. The deceased was also advised to wear abdominal belt for better care and protection and none of the above prescription relates to alleged septic or its ingredients or for pain in abdomen and the leg. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

9.                OP4 and OP5 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte. It is pertinent to mention here that no written statement was filed on behalf of OP5 and OP5 was only allowed to join proceedings vide order dated 16.01.2020.

10.              In evidence, the grandfather and natural guardian of the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C70 and closed the evidence.

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 to OP3 also closed evidence stating that the written statement filed on behalf of OP1 to OP3 be read as evidence by the OPs.

12.              We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

13.              To prove the factum of medical negligence on the part of OP1 to OP4, the complainant has only tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CA of Sh. Baldev Singh along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C70. However, no medical expert or a doctor has been examined by the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint. Admittedly, the cesarean operation was performed by OP2 to OP4 on 24.06.2014 and Chandeep Kaur died on 26.03.2015 i.e. after a period of about 11 months. In between, as per the allegations made in the complaint, the deceased Chandeep Kaur was treated at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Ludhiana, Suman Hospital, Ludhiana and DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and eventually at PGI, Chandigarh but no doctor or medical expert from these hospitals has been examined as a witness to prove the fact that the deceased developed septic at the time of her cesarean operation on 26.04.2014 which was performed by OP2 to OP4. It is pertinent to mention that with regard to the alleged negligence on the part of the OPs report was sought from the Civil Surgeon which is Ex. C69 on the file. In the report by board of doctors comprising of as many as four qualified doctors, it has been mentioned that after going through the medical record, the Board is of unanimous opinion that there is no negligence on the part of the doctors of Shilpy Nursing Home as the patient remained asymptomatic for approximately four months after cesarean. It is further mentioned in the report Ex. C69 that relating the septic shock diagnosed in DMC on 24.03.2016 to the cesarean  section which was done 9 month ago is not justified considering the fact that the patient remained asymptomatic for a period of 4 months after cesarean. It is further stated in the report that the source of infection which led to septic shock cannot be ascertained at this stage retrospectively. It is further pertinent to mention that in the medical record of the patient also, prepared by the Board of doctors which is Ex. C70 on the file, it is mentioned that Chandeep Kaur was treated at Bansal Hospital also from 03.11.2014 to 06.11.2014 on OPD basis with history of fever for 10 days. However in the complaint, it has not been disclosed that any treatment was taken by deceased Chandeep Kaur at Bansal Hospital. Apart from that, in the absence of testimony of medical expert or a doctor, the death of Chandeep Kaur on 26.03.2015 cannot be correlated or attributed to septic allegedly developed at the time of cesarean on 24.06.2014. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the element of negligence o the part of the OPs while performing cesarean operation of Chandeep Kaur on 24.06.2014.

14.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

15.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ekjot Kaur Vs M/s. Shilpy Nursing Home                      CC/15/499

Present:       Sh. Sharwan SEhgal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for OP1 to OP3.

                   OP4 exparte.

                   Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate for OP5.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.