Karnataka

Kolar

CC/35/2014

Smt.Padmavathi.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.L.Jalappa Hospital, & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Raghupathi Gowda

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03/07/2014

Date of Order: 14/10/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 14^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 35 OF 2014

Smt. Padmavathi K,

W/o. E. Chalapathi,

Aged About 27 years,

R/at: Door No.3527,

Near Kamakshamma Temple,

Muthyalpet, Mulbagal,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. R. Raghupathi Gowda, Advocate)            ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Superintendent Cum

Administrator, R.L. Jalappa

Hospital, Tamaka, Kolar.

 

2) Dr. M. Munikrishna, Pediatrics,

Working at R.L. Jalappa Hospital,

Tamaka, Kolar.

 

(OP Nos.1 & 2 are represented by

Sriyuth. K.C. Prasad, Advocate)                          …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) has sought, relief of compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization from the OPs, as well, to direct them to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards further surgery of the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income, present and future.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, she was admitted at 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 OP-2 had conducted the cesarean and treated her till she was discharged.

 

(a)    Further it is her contention that, at the time of conducting operation the OP-2 had not properly done the said cesarean in as much as he had sutured the uterus along with stomach wall.

 

(b)    Further it is her contention that, after discharge she started suffering heavy stomach ache.  And that thereafter she met the OP-2 and explained her problem in detail.  And that the OP-2 had prescribed some tablets which she had consumed.  And that even then the pain did not subside. 

 

(c)    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.

 

(d)    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.

 

(e)    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. 

 

(f)     Further she has contended that, again she visited the hospital of the OPs with scanning report and explained to the OP-2 properly.  And that the OP-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.

 

(g)    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 OP-2.  And that in spite of best efforts on her part the OP-2 had completely neglected her in, as much as, had not given any suitable remedy.

 

(h)    Further it is contended that, she has spent Rs.15,000/- towards treatment taken from the OP-2 and towards Rs.10,000/- for the treatment taken in S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar.  And that thereafter she has spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment taken in Suguna Nursing Home, Kolar.  And that she spent Rs.50,000/- for scanning, X-ray, etc.,.  And that she has spent Rs.5,000/- for a family planning surgery she has undergone (Tubectomy in Badregowda Hospital, Mulbagal).  And that she has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards conveyance, medicines, attendance, etc.,.  And that she was bound to incur to undergo major surgery to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. 

 

(i)     Further it is contended that, she got issued legal notice to the OPs on 23.05.2014.  And that in spite of it the OPs did not come forward to settle the matter nor replied.

 

(j)     So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand to seek above set out reliefs.

 

(k)    Along with the complaint with a list dated: 03.07.2014 the complainant has submitted Xerox copies of the following documents:-

(i) Srinivasa Nursing Home Scanning report

(ii) Department of OBG. Discharge Summary

(iii) Department of pediatrics Discharge summary.

(iv) Admission out-patient record card

(v) OPD Card No.793166

(vi) OPD card No.986380

(vii) OPD card No.793470

(viii) Cash paid bills No.3

(ix) Postal receipts

(x) Postal due acknowledgment No.2

(xi) Legal Notice copy.

 

03.   On registration of the case on the strength of the said complaint notices came to be issued to the OPs.  The said learned counsel has put in his appearance for these OPs on 01.08.2014.  On behalf of the OPs, OP-2 has put the written version resisting claim of the complainant in toto. 

 

(a)    This OP-2 has denied various allegations levelled against him with regard to the contended negligence in treating the complainant.  There is denial with regard to the contended treatment in the said other hospitals including the said scanning report.  There is specific denial that on the strength of the said scanning report as issued by the said Ganesha Nursing Home the complainant approached him by giving the greater details.  Further there is denial that he simply gave pain killer tablets.  Further there is a denial with regard to the contended continuance of the said pain.

 

(b)    There is a specific denial with regard to the said details averred by the complainant with regard to the expenditures she has met for the various contended treatments in the said hospitals. 

 

(c)    Further it is specifically contended that, for the said notice dated: 23.05.2014 a suitable reply came to be given on 20.06.2014.

 

(d)    Per contra, it is specifically pleaded that, on 08.04.2012 when this complainant was admitted in the hospital (run by OP-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.

 

(e)    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 before that, her consent was taken.  And that risks involved with cesarean delivery were fully explained to her.  And that the cesarean section was done on her by him without any problem.  And that the complainant had withstood the procedure in a very well manner.  And that she delivered a live female baby weighing 2.3 Kgs., on 09.04.2012 at 1.57 PM. 

 

(f)     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 9^th post operative day. 

 

(g)    Further it is contended that, this complainant was discharged with follow-up advise.  And that directions were issued to her to return to the hospital in case of any complications.  And that this complainant was in the hospital for the above referred purpose for 11 days.  And that at the time of discharge her conditions were satisfactory.  And that he had adopted correct procedure while doing cesarean section.  And that during her stay in the hospital necessary instruction and care were given without any negligence.

 

(h)    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.  And that probably intra abdominal adhesions could be the reasons for her pain in the abdomen.  And that opinion by the plastic surgeon was advised to her for further evaluation.  And that this advise was given to her husband.

 

(i)     Further it is contended that, the complainant had undergone Laparoscopic Tubectomy by other Doctor before evaluations for pain in the abdomen.  And that if such being the case, she could have approached him earlier for investigation and he might have suggested the remedial measures in case she really had such ailments.  And that the complainant did not consult him soon after noticing abdominal pain.  And that as such there was no occasion for him to suggest remedial measures.  And that this complainant had consulted him only after one year and eight months from the date of discharge.  And that admittedly she had approached him after taking the contended treatments from various places.

 

(j)     It is also specifically contended that, he possess MBBS, DGO, MD Degrees.  And that he has been working as Professor in the Department of OB & G., in R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, with an experience of about 20 years.  And that even he had worked as Unit Head and also as HOD.  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.  So contending dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been sought. 

 

04.   The very complainant has given affidavit evidence and has even undergone cross-examination as PW-2.  Earlier to her one Dr. Narayanaswamy.M, Obstetrician & Gynecologist who is working in Manjunatha Health Care Hospital at Kolar has been examined (taken as PW-1). 

 

05.   It is also worth to note that, along with list dated: 06.12.2014 with Memo the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted the following 29 original documents:-

(1) Cash Bill vide No.92, dated: 25.05.2012, for Rs.4,650/-

(2) Cash Bill vide No.380, dated: 19.05.2012, for Rs.939/-

(3) Prescription and Cash Bill vide No.390, dated: 20.05.2012, for Rs.628/-

(4) Prescription and Cash Bill vide No.403, dated: 21.05.2012, for Rs.597/-

(5) Prescription and Cash Bill vide No.414, dated: 22.05.2012, for Rs.620/-

(6) Prescription and Cash Bill vide No.427, dated: 23.05.2012, for Rs.535/-

(7) Prescription and Cash Bill vide No.437, dated: 24.05.2012, for Rs.589/-

(8) Prescription and Cash Bill vide No.447, dated: 25.05.2012, for Rs.523/-

(9) Cash Memo vide No.455, dated: 24.07.2014, for Rs.5930/-

(10) Cash Memo vide No.1154, dated: 21.04.2014, for Rs.401/-

(11) Cash Memo vide No.1155, dated: 22.04.2014, for Rs.740/-

(12) Cash Memo vide No.1156, dated: 01.05.2014, for Rs.489/-

(13) Cash Memo vide No.1157, dated: 25.04.2014, for Rs.456/-

(14) Cash Bill vide No.698, dated: 22.05.2014, for Rs.147/-

(15) Ultrasound Bill vide No.760, dated: 20.05.2014, for Rs.600/-

(16) Cash Bill vide No.1154, dated: 21.04.2014, for Rs.401/-

(17) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1501, dated: 24.08.2014, for Rs.354/-

(18) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1491, dated: 23.08.2014, for Rs.354/-

(19) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1561, dated: 30.08.2014, for Rs.533/-

(20) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1512, dated: 25.08.2014, for Rs.421/-

(21) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1502, dated: 24.08.2014, for Rs.678/-

(22) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1466, dated: 20.08.2014, for Rs.84/-

(23) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1472, dated: 21.08.2014, for Rs.1597/-

(24) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1471, dated: 21.08.2014, for Rs.1031/-

(25) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1473, dated: 21.08.2014, for Rs.315/-

(26) Prescription & Tax Invoice vide No.1481, dated: 22.08.2014, for Rs.762/-

(27) Manjunatha Health Care Final Bill Vide No.469-6528/14, dated: 30.08.2014, for Rs.36700/-

(28) Discharge summary of Manjunatha Health Care

(29) Discharge summary of Suguna Nursing Home.

 

06.   OP-2 Dr. M. Munikrishna got himself examined as DW-1, in as such as, he has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and has faced cross-examination.

 

07.   With list dated: 28.04.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the OPs has submitted the following two documents:-

(i) Case-sheet pertaining to the complainant Smt. K.Padmavathi.

(ii) Office copy of the reply with postal acknowledgment.

 

08.   On 10.08.2015 the learned counsel appearing for both sides have submitted their respective written arguments.

 

09.   On 10.08.2015 itself the learned counsel appearing for the OPs with Memo has submitted treatise namely Danforth”s Obstetrics & Gynecology Tenth Edition and Munro Kerr’s Operative Obstetrics by way of Xerox copies.

 

10.   On 21.08.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the OPs with Memo has submitted Xerox copies of following treatise:-

(i) Peritoneum theory

(ii) Adhesion (Medicine) Theory

 

11.   Further on this day the learned counsel appearing for the OPs with Memo has submitted the decision dated: 17.02.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3541/2002.

 

12.   On 08.10.2015 heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties.   

 

13.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether the present complaint is barred by time as tried to be pressed in to service by the learned counsel appearing for the Ops at the time of oral arguments?

 

2.   If not, whether OP-2 was guilty of medical negligence while conducting caesarian section on this complainant on 09.04.2012 and hence he is guilty of deficiency in service?

 

3.  If so, to what compensation the complainant is entitled to?  And who shall be liable to pay the same?

 

4.   What order?

 

14.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

 

POINT 1:     In the Negative.

 

POINT 2:     In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 3:     The complainant is entitled to recover compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from 03.07.2014 being the date of the complaint till realization, for being recovered exclusively from the OP-1.

 

POINT 4:     As per final order for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT 1:-

15.   Placing reliance on the case-sheet and specifically on the discharge summary issued by the OPs the learned counsel appearing for the OPs maintained that, the complainant who was admitted in the hospital on 08.04.2012 after the delivery procedure she was discharged on 18.04.2012.  And he further maintained that, the present complaint has been submitted on 03.07.2014 and he also maintained that, the present complaint ought to have been submitted on or before 17.04.2014, whereas it has been submitted on 03.07.2014 by committing delay of nearly two and half months for which no condonation has been sought.  And that under these circumstances this complaint is liable to be dismissed as barred by time in view of provisions of Section 24A of the Act. 

 

(a)    As against the said submissions the learned counsel appearing for the complainant by placing reliance on Para-6 of the affidavit of the OP-2/DW-1 maintained that, according to this very OP-2 one year eight months after such discharge this complainant had approached the OPs with a history of stomach pain that had continued even as on the date of discharge.  And that therefore her such approach to the OPs, admittedly was on 31.01.2014 as per the receipt issued by Op-1 for this complainant for issuing OPD Card vide No.1109640 and another receipt No.1109720 respectively as a out-patient and then as a patient to undergo ultrasound scanning of abdomino pelvic.  And that when so, the present complaint submitted on 03.07.2014 is well in time.

 

(b)    Therefore, we are of the definite opinion that, the material date to reckon shall be 31.01.2014, for, according to the complainant she was not completely cured of the caesarian section she had undergone in the hospital of these OPs on 09.04.2012.   Therefore the limitation would start running only with effect from 31.01.2014 and not on the date of discharge being 18.04.2012.  Moreover not only in Para-6 of the affidavit of this DW.1/OP.2 such an admission could be found, even such admission has been pleaded by the OP-2 for himself and for and on behalf of the OP-1 specifically in Para-10 of the written version.  It is important to note that, there is a pleading that the complainant had approached the hospital on 31.01.2014 with complaint of abdomen pain to the scar side.  As such we are bound to hold that, this complaint is quite in time.

 

POINT 2 & 3:-

16.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    The learned counsel appearing for the OPs by placing reliance on the said treatise and principles enunciated in the said citation is to contend that at no time there was negligence on the part of the OPs right from 08.04.2012 being the date of admission till 18.04.2012 being the date of discharge.  Further he mentioned that, the intervening treatments including tubectomy she underwent were in no way concerned as the same were move on the part of the complainant on her own.  And he also maintained that at the time of tubectomy the complainant was fully at liberty to approach the OPs so that needful remedial measures could have been resorted to.  And that failure on the part of the complainant and appearance of adhesions in the uterus should not be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the Op-2 and hence on the part of the OP-1.

 

(b)    In the first flush the said line of approach on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the OPs seem real, but, a little probe in to the matter would indicate that the contentions so raised are totally devoid of merits.

 

(c)    In the first instance let us concentrate on the very oral evidence of this DW-1/OP-2, in the light of the pleadings maintained by OP-2 for himself and for and on behalf of Op-1 as could be seen in paras-8 to 13 of the written version.

 

(d)    It has been specifically pleaded that, this complainant was so admitted for her second delivery, on 08.04.2012 it was such an admission with complaint of eight months amenorrhea pain in the lower abdomen.  This OP-2 being expert did opine as per pleadings maintained in Para-8 of the written version that, it was G2, P1, L1, with 33 weeks of gestation with previous cesarean section with threatened Pre – Term labour.  It has also been pleaded in this very Para that, risk was explained with regard to the proposed conducting of cesarean section before hand, and the consent came to be taken from her.  The records reveal that on 09.04.2012 high risk consent was given from Sri. E.Chalapathy, husband of the complainant and not this complainant as contended in the said pleading.  Even for such high risk consent given by husband of the complainant “X” mark was marked at which space her husband has signed.  Therefore it gives an impression that, the signature was taken first and the recitals were written later.  For this observation there is another supporting reason.  There is good amount of space between the last line of this recital with regard to high risk consent and the said “X” mark at which space the signature has been done.

 

(e)    Let it be.  Even when we concede that as the previous delivery was admitted by caesarean section there was compulsion at the time of second delivery to resort to caesarean section which was resorted to on 09.04.2012.  Even then OP-2 is at error, in a very gross manner.  As per pleading in Para-10 of the written version and the said documentary evidence being receipts dated: 31.01.2014 as issued by Op-1 vide No.1109720 and 1109640 issued by the OP-1 respectively would indicate that the latter was for the collection of Rs.20/- made for issuance of OPD Card and the former one was issued for the purpose of ultrasound (abdomino pelvic) and for this amount of Rs.270/- came to be collected. 

 

(f)     So we will have to concentrate ourselves in greater detail in the light of evidence on oath given by DW.1/OP-2.  In Para-7 of the cross-examination he has asseverated that in the scanning done the report was to the effect that this complainant was quite normal in her health condition.  Whereas, in para-8 of the cross-examination on being confronted with Exhibit-P.1 the medical report with regard to scanning as issued by Ganesha Health Care on 20.05.2014 which was to suggest with regard to Adhesions in the uterus he has stated that, he was not to agree with the impression given by the said hospital, in as much as even in this report it was mentioned as “uterus appears to be adhered to the anterior abdominal wall at incision side”, for, according to him even in ultrasound scanning it would be difficult to confirm Adhesions. 

 

(g)    We have two doubts with regard to the manner in which this witness has given his opinion.  Firstly, if according to him even the ultrasound scanning could not confirm about locating adhesions in the uterus, how his own scanning recommended on 31.01.2014, which was also done was to come up with a report that this complainant was quite normal in her health condition.  Therefore we are of the very definite opinion that, appearance of adhesions was due to in-correct caesarean section resorted to by this OP-2.  For this end, we are to rely on the very evidence given in the cross-examination of this witness being OP-2, as to be found in Para-7.  He has stated that, one year eight months after such discharge the complainant had approached him with history of the said subsisting inside pain and requested him for needful remedy.  This would mean that the complainant as on the date of discharge being 18.04.2012 was not fully recovered of the caesarean section that was conducted on her by OP-2 on 09.04.2012.

 

(h)    That apart, secondly we are bound to doubt conduct of this OP-2 even when he opined for ultrasound (abdomino pelvic on 31.01.2014).  The reasons are simple.  As noted earlier he has given such a version in Para-7 of the cross-examination that on scanning being conducted the report came to the effect that, the complainant was quite normal in her health condition.  This would mean ultrasound with regard to abdomino pelvic.  Very surprisingly and even in absence of such scanning report dated: 31.01.2014 this witness who gave evidence for cross-examination on 22.06.2015 almost after one and half years from taking of such scan is to state with uncanny memory that her health condition was normal.  However this version would affirm and reaffirm that the scanning and report were available.  Then the question would arise where that scan and report are?  It was up to this very OP-2 to cause production of the same to confirm his opinion that, everything was normal as for as health condition of this complainant was concerned. 

 

(i)     So we are not in a position to believe evasive and self-serving version of this OP-2 as to be found in para-7 of the cross-examination to the effect that health condition of this complainant based on the contended scan and report was normal.  Non-production of this material document is a serious omission on the part of this OP-2 and hence even for OP-1.  We are bound to draw adverse inference to the effect that had this scan and report been submitted then the same could have spoken-to against such a version of this complainant being in good health as averred by OP-2.

 

(j)     So we are compelled to place a reliance on evidence of PW-1 Dr. Narayanaswamy who had conducted hysterectomy operation on this complainant (removal of uterus).  In the examination-in-chief dated: 07.02.2015 he has stated on oath that, there was difficulty in opening the abdomen as the uterus was plastered to the anterior abdominal wall.  He has further stated that, as the ovaries also were deeply plastered in to the uterine mass the same were removed and for this when the forum through the then learned Predecessor put a question he has stated that, such plastering problems might have occurred due to infection following previous operation.  This would mean the complainant had developed infection because of the failure of the caesarean conducted by OP-2 on this complainant on 09.04.2012.

 

(k)    This witness during the course of cross-examination has also stated that, the caesarean operation was conducted on this complainant on 09.04.2012 and the complainant/patient had approached the Manjunatha Health Care on 20.08.2014 for ailment.  And at this juncture of answer the Forum through the learned Predecessor had put a question for which this witness being expert opined that the main causes for the infection were due to improper operation and also due to non-taking of suitable antibiotics.  In either event we could see the failure of diligence on the part of the OP-2 while he conducted caesarean section on this complainant on 09.04.2012 and till she was discharged on 18.04.2012.

 

(l)     Therefore we are of the opinion that, on 31.01.2014 the complainant being sincerely interested to improve her health condition had made a re-approach to this OP-2 who was totally indifferent in spite of collecting fees of Rs.270/- to come up with documentary evidence being the scan with a report.  Thus the complainant was forced to undergo ordeal of hysterectomy by getting herself admitted in the said Manjunatha Health Care at Kolar on 21.08.2014 who was discharged on 30.08.2014 after hysterectomy done on 22.08.2014 (reliance placed on receipt issued by Manjunatha Health Care, Kolar, as well, the discharge summary).  Therefore the principles enunciated in the said citation holding that, the appellant therein was not guilty of medical negligence are in-applicable to the case on hand.  Furthermore we are of the opinion that in the light of the said evidence so discussed the treatise as relied by the learned counsel for the OPs is not applicable to the case on hand.  

 

(m)   So we are bound to proceed to assess the compensation.  As per the documentary evidence of list dated: 06.02.2014 the complainant did spend Rs.54,743/-, which amount she is bound to get back.

 

(n)    Right from 08.04.2012 and got discharged from Op-1 hospital on 18.04.2012 she moved from pillar to post to regain her health and lastly she got admitted in Manjunatha Health Care at Kolar on 21.08.2014 and was discharged on 30.08.2014.  Thus nearly for these two years she must have spent money to come to Kolar and then get back to Mulbagal her native place which is at a distance of about 28 to 30 kilometers from Kolar.  And all the time she cannot be expected to come alone, for, along with her the said newly born girl child would be there, besides one attendant to accompany her.  Thus for travelling and expenses on the attendant and staying at Kolar for 10 days from 21.08.2014 to 30.08.2014 we are of the opinion that she must have spent lot more than Rs.21,000/-.  Thus we hold that for medical and necessary incidental expenses she must have spent sum of Rs.54,743/- and Rs.21,000/- respectively and this we restrict to the round figure of Rs.75,000/-.

 

(o)    For no fault of her this complainant had severe set-back in her health condition including her mental health condition because of the unnecessary tension she was to undergo.  Therefore we are of the definite opinion that, she could be paid compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  As such the complainant is held entitled to recover total sum of Rs.1,75,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from 03.07.2014 being the date of the complaint till realization.

 

(p)    Now we are bound to fix the liability.  Indisputably OP-2 was employed as a Doctor who also has been working as a Professor in the Department of O.B & G.  Besides he was Unit Head and also HOD working in the medical institution run by OP-1.  Indisputably for the negligence and hence deficiency in service on the part of the OP-2, the Op-1 is bound to be held as exclusively accountable to pay the said compensation together with interest as noted above.

 

POINT 4:-

17.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- as hereunder:-

 

(a) The complainant is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 03.07.2014 being the date of the complaint till realization for being recovered exclusively from OP-1.

 

(b)    We give time of one month to this OP-1 to pay the said sum from the date of communication of this order.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 14^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                     PRESIDENT