BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.16/2006 against C.D.No.649/1995, Dist.Forum, Khammam.
Between:
Dr.M.Lakshmi Rajeswari,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation :Private Medical Practitioner,
R/o.Rohit Nursing Home, Wyra Road,
Khammam, Khammam District . …Appellant/
Opp.party
And
Nunna Sujatha , W/o.Pradeep,
Age 20 years, Occu:House Hold,
R/o.Telagavaram Village,
Tallada Mandal, Khammam District . …Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the appellant : M/s.M.Hari Babu
Counsel for the respondent : M/s.J.Prabhakar
CORAM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND,HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order : (Per Smt. M.Shreesha , Hon’ble Member. )
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.649/1995 on the file of District Forum , Khammam ,opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant is a resident of Telegavaram Village, Tallada Mandal, Khammam District and she was blessed with two children. The Complainant had conceived for the third time in the year 1994 and the complainant and her husband decided to get the pregnancy terminated. The complainant was taken to the Nursing Home of the opposite party on 5th November,1994 in the second month of her pregnancy and expressed their desire to the opposite party to get the pregnancy terminated. The complainant paid Rs.700/- towards her fee to the opposite party as demanded by them. Opposite Party who was practicing as an Obstetrician & Gynecologist at Rohit Nursing Home, Wyra Road, Khammam checked the complainant’s B.P. and conducted the surgery for termination of pregnancy on 5th November,1994 and informed the same to the complainant and prescribed certain medicines and asked her to come for check up on 8.11.1994, 14.11.1994, 18.11.1994 and 10.12.1994. Opposite Party prescribed some drugs on the above said dates which the complainant meticulously used. Though the surgery was conducted on 5th November 1994 the date on the prescription is shown as 5th October,1994 by the opposite party. The complainant suffered severe bleeding even after the usage of drugs prescribed by the opposite party . The complainant and her husband have reported this problem to opp.party on 18.11.1994 and the opposite party had prescribed some medicines, but even after usage of the said medicines, complainant suffered bleeding. Again the complainant brought the said problem to the notice of the opposite party, but the opposite party and her husband have callously treated the complainant and her husband and threatened them with dire consequences. The complainant developed suspicion on the treatment and surgery conducted by Opposite Party, and approached Dr.D.Suseela who is also a Specialist in Gynecology and Obestetrics at Prasooti Vydyasala, Wyra Road, Khammam on 13.12.1994. The said Doctor had thoroughly examined the complainant and opined that the surgery of termination of pregnancy conducted by opposite party on 5.11.1994 is not complete and a part of the foetus was left inside the complainant’s womb and only a part was removed due to which infection developed which caused heavy bleeding.
The complainant submits that Dr.D.Suseela had again conducted the surgery of termination of pregnancy on 13th December,1994. Six months after the said termination, the complainant has been suffering from excessive bleeding due to infection developed due to the earlier incomplete surgery done by the opposite party. Dr.D.Suseela informed the complainant that if the bleeding is not arrested she may have to undergo hysterectomy. The complainant had again seen Dr.Dharma Reddy an Obestetrician & Gynecologist at Khammam who had also opined that the problem is due to incomplete surgery done by opposite party. He also advised the complainant to undergo Hysterectomy if the bleeding is not arrested after one month. Due to the negligence of the opposite party, the complainant and her husband suffered severe mental and physical agony. She submits that she spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- for medicines, medical fee, diagnostic charges and transport. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, complainant approached District Forum to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses, medical fee, diagnostic charges and transport charges and Rs.1 lakh towards damages for mental agony and physical pain etc. along with costs .
Opposite party filed counter and admitting the operation conducted by her i.e. the termination of pregnancy of complainant. Opposite party denies for want of knowledge that the the complainant suffered severe bleeding even after the usage of drugs prescribed by opposite party. Opposite party states that it is not her duty to take care of the usage of drugs by the patients. Opposite party states that she had prescribed the medicines to the complainant according to her complaint and the complainant might have not used the medicines prescribed by her and it might be the reason for her severe bleeding or she might have not observed hygienic conditions which are required for post operative patients. Hence it is negligence on the part of the complainant. Opposite party contends that no documentary evidence is filed by the complainant to prove the surgery undertaken or treatment given by the opposite party is wrong. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint by awarding damages of Rs.15,000/-
Exs.A1 to A5 documents are filed on behalf of the complainant. Complainant was examined as PW.1 and one Dr.D.Susheela, Private Medical Practitioner was also examined as PW.2 on behalf of the complainant. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings put forward allowed the complaint partly directing opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards medical expenses, medical fee diagnostic charges and transport charges and also to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards damages with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.12.1995 till the date of realization with the litigation costs of Rs.3000/- within one month from the date receipt of the order failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the opposite party
Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant underwent MTP operation conducted by the opposite party on 5.11.1994 and was discharged on the same day. She was advised to come for follow up checkups on 8th, 14th and 18.11.1994. Once again the complainant’s husband approached the opposite party stating that his wife was complaining of white discharge. It is the complainant’s case that once again on 10.12.1994 she went to opposite party, but the opposite party did not respond properly and asked her to go to some other hospital, whereas the opposite party contends that she had given the patient some hormones but later the complainant did not turn up. It is the contention of the opposite party that it is quite a common complication in MTP operation, that there would be bleeding with the possibility of presence of remnants. The complainant contends that she approached PW2 Dr. D.Susheela who is a Private Medical Practitioner who examined the complainant and who also deposed before the Forum.
We have perused the deposition of Dr.D.Susheela, PW.2. She stated as follows:
“When I examined I found remnants of products of conception That is the probable cause for the profused bleeding. Because there is profused bleeding I prescribed medicines for improvement of her health and hemoglobin because there are remnants and the earlier MTP is not a complete one. Because there was profused bleeding and there are remanents I did immediate surgery. “
On re-examination the doctor also opined as follows:
“To find whether there are any remanents a second checkup and surgery has to be made . If a patient complains of bleeding the logical conclusion is that there are some products in the uterus. “
This deposition clearly confirms that there were indeed remnants
after the first MTP operation conducted by the opposite party and
though admittedly the complainant visited her with a complaint of
profused bleeding on 14.11.1994, 18.11.1994 and 10.12.1994,
the opposite party did not take any steps to further examine the
patient or to conduct a second operation to remove remnants as
was done by Dr.Susheela later subsequently. Though the Opposite
Party denied that she never suggested that the complainant to
go for hysterectomy, there is no explanation forthcoming from the
opposite party as to why no proper steps as per common medical
practice and parlance were undertaken by her to remove remnants
and control profuse bleeding except saying that she noted that the
complainant was having her periods.
We rely on the decision of Apex court In Dr.Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr.Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr. reported in (1969) I SCR 2006. The Apex court discussed the “duty of care” a doctor should undertake
a) A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case
b) A duty of care in deciding what treatment to be given
c) A duty of care in the administration of that treatment
This Judgement can be applied in the instant case, since the doctor i.e. opposite party herein, though admittedly conducted the operation on 5.11.94 and has also admittedly seen the patient on 14.11.94, 18.11.94 and 10.12.94 and admittedly received the complaints from the patient about profused bleeding, has not undertaken proper ‘duty of care’ as per standard medical parlance and has not removed the remnants, as evidenced by expert opinion by Dr.Susheela who deposed before the Forum as PW.2. The complainant also filed prescriptions of Dr.K.Dharma Reddy which prove beyond doubt that the surgery performed by the appellant/opposite party was incomplete and the complainant had to undergo lot of physical and mental pain and agony. In the light of the documentary evidence filed, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant had established her case that there was negligence on behalf of the appellant/opposite party.
In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.26.6.2009
