Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 76
Instituted on : 15.02.2018
Decided on : 22.08.2023
Sarita w/o Sh. Hitesh Kaushik R/o H.No. 437/28, Bharat Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Meenakshi Chauhan, H.O.D. Unit IV Ward No. 2, Gyanee Obst, Pt. B.D.Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak under Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak.
- Medical, Superintendent Pt. B.D.Sharma, University of Health Science, Rohtak.
- Dr. Bhupali@ Bhopali Dass, Unit IV Ward No. 2, Gyanee Obst. Pt. B.D.Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak under Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak through Medical Superintendent, Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak.
3(i) Permanent address: Dr. Bhupali Dass D/o Sh. Dwijen Das R/o H.No. 5, Lane-6, Sreenagar Opposite State Zoo, near Midland Hospital, Guwahati, Assam-781006.
3(ii) Present address: Dr. Bhupali Dass C/o Website curofy.com/doctors/Rohtak/obstetrics&- gynecology
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Argued: Sh. S.N.Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Surender Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complainant as per complainant are that on 15.07.2017, she was admitted as patient in PGIMS, Rohtak vide CR No. 579244, in unit No. IV Ward No.2, Gyane headed by opposite party no. 1, for the purpose of delivery. That during the process of her delivery and treatment, gross medical negligence was committed by Dr. Meenakshi Chauhan as she instead of working herself, delegated her job to some under training doctors/unqualified PG students of her ward. It is submitted that though her delivery was normal, but in the process of taking out the newly born baby, by wrongly using the instruments, the vaginal wall of the complainant was torn by the untrained doctor and her other associates who were on duty at that time. As a result of which there was a huge bleeding and pains to her. Doctor concerned working under opposite party, stitched her vaginal wall but the same was not properly stitched. So she suffered a huge physical trouble as her health deteriorated, on account of sheer medical negligence caused by doctor and her other associates, who attended to her during the time of delivery and treatment. The stitching were also not made properly. The complainant remained under treatment there till 18.07.2017, but her pains did not subside and her complications continued. Instead of better treatment, she was shifted to other portion of ward No.2 on 3rd floor and she was taken there on foot, while it was very difficult for her to move, she was not even taken by lift or by attendants on wheel chair. Her condition deteriorated day by day for want of proper care. On request to give proper treatment, the doctors on duty, felt annoyed and forcibly discharged the complainant on 18.07.2017, by taking her signatures on plain paper and later on that paper was used as writing with the contentions that she was discharged on the request of complainant and her husband on demand and even the medical papers and discharge card were not given to the complainant. On the same day i.e. 18.07.2017 she was rushed to Private Hospital, namely Sun Flag Global Hospital Sonipat Road, Rohtak, for better treatment and there Doctor advised her to come on 21.07.2017 as at that time there was no spare bed in that hospital. She was given medicines & was advised to come as & when required in between, as her house was nearer to the Hospital. Complainant got herself admitted in that hospital as indoor patient on 21.07.2017, in special ward with her child. She was given treatment there till 29.07.2017 as indoor patient and was discharged with the advise to attend the hospital for follow up as outdoor patient. The complainant has spent about Rs.1,50,000/- for the treatment and medicines. That despite further treatment, she has not recovered from her illness as she even could not hold her child in her lap, though better treatment was given to her by the doctors at Sun Flag Hospital, Rohtak, where wrong stitching made by doctors in PGIMS, Rohtak was removed. Again the stitching was made by the doctor Dagar. The newly born female child was also got jaundice due to not giving proper care and caution by the doctors of PGIMS, Rohtak who were also working under opposite party. The complainant was having epi wound swelling, while she was discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak, which was the result of wrong treatment given by the doctor/doctors at PGIMS, Rohtak. The doctor at Sun Flag Hospital, firstly removed the wrong stitches which were given by doctors at PGIMS, Rohtak and the infection was also treated. Thereafter Vaginal wall of complainant was stitched and repaired but she is still under treatments as her condition has not properly improved, she is still unfit to co-habit with her husband as her vaginal canal has become narrow, due to wrong treatment of PGIMS Rohtak. It was the cumulative effect of services of acts of omissions or commissions of doctors at PGIMS, so the complainant suffered immense pains and injuries. A duty of care and caution is required from the treating doctor/doctors but while treating the complainant, they failed to do so due to their negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant has suffered a huge physical, monetary, mental pain and agony due to sheer negligence and deficiency in service of the doctors working under opposite party and while wrong treatment given by them, those doctors were Dr. Bhupoli, Dr. Nirmal, Dr. Anita, Dr. Sandhya, working in ward No.2 in PGIMS, Rohtak in the unit No.4 of opposite party No.1. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12% with penalty of Rs.50,000/- jointly and severally with costs as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant was admitted under unit IV. The resident doctors of all the units were posted in the labour room. The labour room was headed by the consultants round of clock. They examined and managed all the admissions. In case of emergency before 2:00 PM, since the emergency unit is in OPD, senior consultant of the unit in Ward 2 has to be contacted. Dr. Meenakshi Chauhan has not committed any medical negligence as the patient was admitted in labor room and normal delivery was conducted by the team of the doctors posted in labor room under the supervision of consultant in the labor room. The small vaginal wall tear which may occur normally in vaginal deliveries and not due to wrong use of any instrument. The tear was treated at the same time. As per the protocol of the department after delivery, the patients are kept under observation in the labor room and once stable, after examination, the patients are shifted in the ward. The patient was shifted on stretcher by the labor room staff. The patient and the attendant wanted to leave the hospital against medical advice(LAMA). The attendants have given their consent on the file that they want to take their patient willingly. The patient was not discharged forcibly. It is submitted that complainant had rushed to the private hospital for treatment. But if she was in such a critical condition then why the doctor of private hospital did not admit her on the same day. Why she was advised to come on 21.07.2017. This clearly shows that the allegation of the complainant is totally wrong. The newly born baby was taken care by the pediatrician at PGIMS. There was no delay or instrumental delivery by the obstetrician. The jaundice may be physiological. The pediatrician had advised phototherapy at PGIMS but the patient left against the medical advice. The delivery of the patient was a normal vaginal delivery not instrumental. The patient was given best treatment by the doctors of the Institute as per situation and need of the patient. As per record she was stable during her stay at PGIMS Rohtak. There was no negligence on the part of treating doctors of the institute. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Opposite party no. 3 appeared and reiterated the contents of reply filed by opposite party no. 1 & 2 and has also submitted that as per record of the CR file complainant was admitted under Unit IV in the Labour room, which was headed by consultants, senior residents and PG students round the clock. Dr. Sarika Gautam was the consultant of the team and Senior resident was Megha Punitha and post Graduate students were Dr. Nirmala Bhandari, Dr. Pooja Bansal, Dr. Ankita and Dr. Nisha. As per record patient was examined by Dr. Pooja Bansal at the time of admission followed by Senior resident Dr. Megha Punitha. The patient had been leaking/discharging since half an hour before admission at 36th week of gestation which is pre-mature. This occurs generally due to some pre-existing infection. The progress of the labour was rapid as she delivered within one hour of admission. It was a kind of precipitate labour where vaginal tear can occur naturally. All the works of labor room was divided among the team members as PG students under supervision of consultants and senior residents as a student the opposite party no. 3 was allotted monitoring of high risk room and her duty was in that room, she did not participated in the delivery process of complainant in any way but she was member of team for assistance. The delivery was allegedly conducted by Dr. Nirmala Bhandari under the supervision of senior resident. It is wrong to allege that delivery and treatment was conducted by Dr. Meenakshi Chauhan. The delivery of the baby was normal. It was not instrumental delivery. The small vaginal wall tear which may occur normally in vaginal delivery and not due to wrong use of any instrument. As per record tear was repaired at the same time under the supervision of senior resident. There was no evidence of profuse bleeding as record. It is wrong to allege that staff on duty ever annoyed with the complainant or she was forcibly discharged from the hospital on 18.07.2017. The complainant or her family members never made any complaint to Director or Medial Superintendent in this regard. No Medical Board was got constituted by complainant for determining the facts. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C62 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.09.2019. Statement of witness Dr.Ashilu Dagar was also recorded on 16.05.2019 who also placed on record treatment record Ex.C1. Dr. Meenakshi Chauhan for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on dated 04.03.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties no.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-2/B, document Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on dated 02.03.2023. Dr.Bhopali Dass was also cross examined by ld. counsel for the complainant at length.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case grievance of the complainant is that at the time of delivery, due to negligence caused by doctors/other associates of opposite parties, her vaginal wall was torn. As a result of which, there was a huge bleeding and pains to her. Doctor concerned working under the opposite party, stitched her vaginal wall but the same was not properly stitched. So the complainant suffered a huge physical trouble and pain. Due to which, the complainant had to rush to the private hospital namely Sunflag Hospital and had spent a huge amount of Rs.150000/- for the treatment and medicines. On the other hand, contention of the opposite parties is that there was no negligence on the part of opposite parties. It is further contended that the small vaginal wall tear which may occur normally in vaginal deliveries and not due to wrong use of any instrument. The tear was treated at the same time. There was no evidence of huge bleeding. As per record complainant was stable during her stay at PGIMS Rohtak. She was under treatment and was not discharged, rather the patient left the hospital against medical advice(LAMA)treatment.
7. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per treatment record of PGIMS, Rohtak placed on record as Ex.C41 to Ex.C52, the complainant was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak on 15.07.207 for delivery. She gave the birth to a baby girl on the same day and the delivery was normal. As per Ex.C50, it is proved that vaginal wall was torn and the same was stitched. As per Ex.C52, the patient left the hospital against medical advice on 18.07.2017. Thereafter she contacted the Sunflag Hospital. As per the statement of Dr. Ashilu Dagar, Gyn. Sunflag Hospital, Rothak, “The patient had contacted her on 18.07.2017 and prescription was given. She contacted the hospital after complication from the other hospital where the delivery was conducted. The patient Sarita was admitted in the hospital on 21.07.2017. It is further submitted that at the time of admission in their hospital, the patient/complainant was suffering from infection. The wound was opened and there was severe infection in the wound”. We have minutely perused the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 as Ex.RW1/A. As per this affidavit, when the complainant Sarita came to Labour Room for delivery and was admitted there she already had leaking per vaginum and on examination her membranes was absent. In the case of complainant with absent membranes there is high possibility of infection in Genital tract. It is further submitted that the delivery of complainant was a normal vaginal delivery and not an instrumental delivery. The small vaginal incision is Episiotomy which is part of normal vaginal delivery and not due to wrong use of any instrument. It was stitched at the same time. There was no evidence of huge bleeding.. The postpartum vitals and hemoglobin level was within normal limits. The doctors who conducted the delivery were post graduate Residents Doctors who are MBBS qualified during their graduation and one year internship, they have been trained to conduct deliveries and other surgical procedures. At the same time in the labour room, they are also supervised by Senior Residents and consultants incharge.
8. Dr. Ashilu Dagar was summoned and examined as CW1. In her chief examination, she deposed that “ It is correct that stitches were already been given . They were already open when she approached in my hospital. There are several points of opening of stitches and she cannot pin point the same. Stitches/wound can also open, if the proper care is not done by the patient”. After going through the affidavit of Dr. Meenakshi and affidavit & statement of Dr. Ashilu Dager, we came into the conclusion that there is no negligence on the part of Dr. Meenakshi and treating doctors including respondent no.3. But it is has been established that the complainant had chronic infection during her stay in the hospital of opposite parties and she left the hospital against the medical advice(LAMA) because the infection was not reducing. Hence it is proved that there was no negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 & 3 in conducting the delivery as the patient/complainant suffered complications due to infection only. There are several reasons of infection. It may be caused due to unhygienic conditions in the hospital i.e. uncleanliness in ward, untidy beds and due to non-cleaning of the toilets etc. Moreover, complainant in her complaint and affidavit has submitted that she was shifted to other portion of ward no.2 on 3rd floor and was taken there on foot while it was very difficult for her to move. She was not even taken there by lift or by attendants on wheel chair. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 has not placed on record any document e.g. statement or affidavit of the person/doctor who shifted her to the ward to prove the fact that the complainant was shifted to the ward on wheel chair or stretcher etc. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 by not giving the proper facilities to the complainant, due to which, she suffered from infection and her condition deteriorated and she had to move to another hospital and had to spend a huge amount on her treatment. As such opposite party No. 2 is liable to compensate the complainant. As per bills Ex.C7 to Ex.C24, complainant had spent an amount of Rs.11563/- on medicines, as per bill Ex.C25 & Ex.C26, she spent an amount of Rs.43000/- and Rs.13700/- on her treatment in Sunflag hospital i.e. total Rs.68263/-(Rs. 11563/- + Rs.43000/- + Rs.13700/-).
8 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs.68263/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand two hundred and sixty three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.02.2018 till its realisation and Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.08.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
...............................................
Vijender Singh, Member
