BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
APPEAL No.1020/2015
1. The Medical Superintendent
and Administrator,
R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Tamaka, Kolar-563 101
... Appellant/s
2. Dr.Munikrishna.M.,
Obstetrician and Gynecologist,
HOD, R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Tamaka, Kolar-563 101
(By Sri.N.C.Mohan, Advocate)
-V/s-
Smt.Padmavathi.K,
W/o Sri.E.Chalapathi,
Aged about 28 years, … Respondent/s
Near Kamakshamma Temple,
Muthyalpet, Mulbagal,
Kolar-563 101
(By-Sri.G.A.Srikante Gowda, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Kolar in CC.No.35/2014 and prays to set-aside the order in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant was admitted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital at Kolar on 08.04.2012 as an in-patient for delivery. And that on 09.04.2012 she gave birth to a female baby under cesarean vide inpatient card No.793470 and baby OP. No.793166 and that the Opposite Party No.2 had conducted the cesarean and treated her till she was discharged. Further it is her contention that, at the time of conducting operation the Opposite Party No.2 had not properly done the said cesarean in as much as he had sutured the uterus along with stomach wall.
Further it is her contention that, after discharge she started suffering heavy stomach ache and that thereafter she met the Opposite Party No.2 and explained her problem in detail and that the Opposite Party No.2 had prescribed some tablets which she had consumed and that even then the pain did not subside. Further she has contended that, she took treatment in S.N.R. hospital at Kolar. And that however the said problem continued. And that she got admitted at Suguna Nursing Home at Kolar on 19.05.2012. And that in this hospital she was informed that she was suffering from stomach ache due to mistake committed at the time of conducting cesarean and that they had further advised her to undergo major operation. Further she has contended that, she underwent family planning operation in Dodda Badregowda Hospital at Mulbagal and that here also she was advised to undergo major operation.
Further she has contended that, she underwent Ultra Sound scanning in Ganesha Nursing Home at Kolar. And that the report clearly revealed that, there were, adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall at incision site being post operation Adhesions. Further she has contended that, again she visited the hospital of the Opposite Parties with scanning report and explained to the Opposite Party No.2 properly. And that the Opposite Party No.2 had simply prescribed some pain killer tablets. And that the pain she was suffering still continued and that the said pain was becoming very severe day by day thus threatening her life. She has further contended that, she started suffering from such a pain, mental shock and agony on account of negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. Further it is contended that, she got issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 23.05.2014 and that in spite of it the Opposite Parties did not come forward to settle the matter nor replied.
3. The Opposite Party No.2 has denied various allegations leveled against him with regard to the contended negligence in treating the complainant. It is specifically pleaded that, on 08.04.2012 when this complainant was admitted in the hospital (run by Opposite Party No.1), she was admitted in OB&G Unit No.2 with complaint of 08 months Amenorrhea and pain in the lower abdomen. And that he being an experienced and well qualified doctor had diagnosed as a case of G-2, P1, L1, with 33 weeks gestation with previous cesarean section with threatened Free–Term labour (taken read as Pre-Term Labour). And that necessary investigation and treatment were started as soon as this complainant was admitted in the hospital on 09.04.2014.
Further it is contended that, the complainant had scar tenderness and obstetric scan review, in view of scar tenderness and that decision was taken to conduct cesarean and that she delivered a live female baby weighing 2.3 Kgs., on 09.04.2012 at 1.57 PM. Further it is contended that, due care was taken of this complainant and her baby. And that the incision wound had healed well without any problem on 9th post operative day. Further it is contended that, this complainant was discharged with follow-up advice.
Further it is contended that, later, one year eight months after the date of discharge from the hospital this complainant came to the hospital on 31.01.2014, to the out-patient department with a complaint of abdominal pain to the scar side and that immediately she was attended by him. And that she was examined clinically and that at that time he had observed that, her general conditions were good and scar area had healed well and there was incisonal hernia.
Further it is contended that, he had taken all care and had given high tech treatment to the complainant with good Nursing care and that in-spite of it, the complainant had issued a false legal notice and that in-spite of suitable reply, this complainant has submitted the present false complaint and that the case-sheet maintained by them would clearly indicate that there could be no negligence on their part while giving treatment to the complainant.
4. After trial, the District Consumer Commission, Kolar has allowed the complaint with litigation costs.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. Heard arguments from appellant side.
7. Perused the appeal memo, certified copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the appellant No.2 possess MBBS, DGO, MD degree and he has working as Professor in the department of OB&G in R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar with experience of about 20 years. It is also not in dispute that, the respondent has admitted to the appellant No.1 hospital at Kolar for second delivery on 8.4.2012. It is also not in dispute that on 9-4-2012 the respondent gave birth to a female baby under cesarean and discharged on 18-4-2012 with advised medication and follow up for review after seven days. It is also not in dispute that the respondent undergone Laparoscopic Tubectomy in Dodda Badregowda Hospital at Mulbagal.
8. The allegation of respondent is that, after discharge, she was started abdominal pain, she met to appellant No.2 and explained the problem, the appellant No.2 had prescribed only tablets. Further the same problem was continued, she took treatment in S.N.R.Hospital at Kolar also Suguna Nursing Home at Kolar but still the problem was continued then she underwent ultrasound scanning in Ganesha Nursing Home at Kolar and visited appellants. The scanning report reveals that they were adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall at incision site being post operation adhesions. Even seeing the scan report, the appellant No.2 prescribed some pain killer tablets only and neglected the respondent and due to negligence of appellant, she was undergoing major surgery and spent lot of money.
9. Per-contra the appellants contended that the respondent had scar tenderness and obstetric scan review in view of scar tenderness and the decision was taken to conduct the cesarean by adopted correct procedure and risk was explained to her and after delivery the respondent was discharged after be found fit and no any complaints with follow up advise but the respondent did not came for follow up and came back only after one year eight months with complaint of abdominal pain to the scar side. Moreover he had taken all care and had given high-tech treatment to the respondent with good nursing care. Hence, there is no negligence on their part while giving the treatment. Moreover, the respondent has not produced any expert opinion regarding negligence of the appellants.
10. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is an evident that Ex-P1, Medical scanning report issued by the Ganesh Health Care on 20-5-2014 in which mentioned that “Uterus appears to be adhered to the anterior abdominal wall at incision side”. The respondent has visited different hospitals for checkups and to retain her health after her discharge from appellant hospital. However the problem was continued, hence the respondent got admitted in Manjunath Health Care at Kolar on 21-8-2014 and discharged on 30-8-2014 and spent lot of money to recover. It is also evident that the evidence of PW1 Dr.Narayanaswamy who has conducted hysterectomy operation (removal of uterus) he has stated that “there was difficulty in opening the abdomen as the uterus was plastered to the anterior abdominal wall as the ovaries also were deeply plastered in to the uterine mass the same were removed”. Further stated that ovaries also were deeply plastered into the Uterine mass, the same were removed and for this when the District Commission put a question he has stated that “such plastering problems might have occurred due to infection following previous operation” and also in cross examination he has stated that “the main causes for infection were due to improper operation and also due to non taking of suitable antibiotics”. The respondent has approached the appellants with scan report obtained from Ganesh Nursing Home to improve her health condition. However the appellant No.2 has neglected her and prescribed only pain killer which is negligence on the part of the appellants. The abdominal adhesions are complication of previous surgery. It is band of scar tissue that binds to part of tissue that are not normally joined together and it develops due complication of C-section surgery. The appellant has contended that there is no expert opinion produced by the respondent to prove that the appellant No.2 is negligent to conduct the C-Section. However, if the respondent has produced scan report and also there is evidence of Dr.Narayanaswamy who have conducted operation of removal of uterus on record, it is not necessary to produce another expert evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the appellant.
11. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
The impugned order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolar in CC.No.35/2014 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to disburse the same to the respondent/complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Lady Member Judicial Member
Jrk/-
