Tamil Nadu
North Chennai
32/2011
V.Visalakshi - Complainant(s)
Versus
Raghavi Hospital - Opp.Party(s)
M/s. S.D.S.Phillip
23 Dec 2016
ORDER
Complaint presented on: 17.02.2011
Order pronounced on: 23.12.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
FRIDAY THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
C.C.NO.32/2011
Mrs.V.Visalakshi,
W/o.Mr.Vetrivel,
No.17/1, Rajan Nagar Main Road,
Kolathur,
Chennai – 600 099.
….. Complainant
..Vs..
1. Raghavi Hospital,
Affiliated to K.J.Hospital Research,
And Post Graduate Centre,
Rep. by its Director,
Dr.Balamani Mugian,
12/16, (New No.64),
Seethakathi Salai,
Mogappair East,
Chennai – 600 050.
2. Dr.Balamani Mugian,
Director,
K.J.Hospital Research
and Post Graduate Center,
12/16, (New No.64),
Seethakathi Salai,
Mogappair East,
Chennai – 600 050.
3. SKS Hospital,
Rep. by its Owner,
Dr.S.Selvakumar,
759, TVS Colony,
Anna Nagar West Extension,
Chennai – 600 101.
|
| |
...Opposite Parties |
|
Date of complaint : 22.02.2011
Counsel for Complainant : M/s.S.D.S.Phillip
Counsel for 1st & 2nd opposite parties : M/s. Anand, Abdul & Vinodh Associates
Counsel for 3rd Opposite Party : M/s. K.Selvarangan, S.Palanivelayutham
J.Ranjani Devi
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainant was admitted in the 1st Opposite Party Hospital when she had labour pain on 24.08.2008 with IP No.267 under the 2nd Opposite Party’s care and treatment and the Complainant delivered a male baby an hour after admission and the time of birth of the baby was 8.32 p.m on 24.08.2008. The 2nd Opposite Party informed the Complainant’s husband that it was a normal delivery and that the delivery went off smoothly and there was no complication whatsoever during delivery and that both the mother and the child were of normal health. The Complainant later on came to know that the 2nd Opposite Party did a surgical procedure called ‘Episiotomy’ to deliver the male baby. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 were grossly negligent in cutting the vaginal wall too deep which leads to cut the anal canal causing injury and opening and the same was suppressed by them and they did not take remedial care when approached by the Complainant. The Complainant was discharged on 25.08.2008 by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 gave a discharge summary and follow up record wherein it was merely recorded that antibiotics are to be taken for 5 days and there should be a review after 5 days. She was taking the antibiotics as prescribed by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and within 2 days she developed discharge of pus from the suture area and the motion was coming out of the sutured site instead of coming through the anus.
2. Then the Complainant was rushed to a nearby hospital on 02.09.2008 namely SKS Hospital, at No.959, TVS Colony, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai – 600 101, the 3rd Opposite Party herein. There the Complainant was diagnosed to have undergone forceps delivery by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 on 24.08.2008 and that there was a complete perineal tear and a perineal wound with exterior anal splinter gaping and she was advised re-suturing after 7 days and also advised bed rest for 5 days. She was given sterile wash in the vagina and injections with antibiotics for 2 days. A second surgery was done at the 3rd Opposite Party by Dr.S.Selvakumar and Dr.M.C.Rajeswari with assistance from Dr.Anjali Selvakumar and Dr.Bhavani as the anesthetist on 06.09.2008 and second suturing of perineal wound was done under SA, D & C. The Complainant was discharged on 17.09.2008 as there was no further discharge and she was advised to avoid taking solid and spicy foods and to dress the wound every day for a week. She was also given various ointments to apply on the wound by the 3rd Opposite Party.
3.The Complainant states that by the end of the first week of October 2008, again the intense pain started and persists of irritation in the same place and the motion leaking through the sutured wound instead of coming through the anus. Hence, she went to C.S.M. Nursing Home, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033 and a CT scan was done on 09.10.2008 and it revealed that a thin fistulous tract extending from the anal canal to the vagina had been formed and it was diagnosed as recto vaginal fistula by Dr.A.Vanitha and Dr.C.Vasumathi. This established that the surgical procedure done by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have been done carelessly and without proper and due care that too without assistance from any other surgeon or anesthetist and because of such negligent act, the Complainant had suffered the perineal wound and the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 did not exercise due care in ensuring that the sutures were properly done and that there was no cut or injury in the anal canal. Further, the Opposite Parties did not attend to the Complainant when she went back to them two days after the discharge. The 2nd Opposite Party also did not perform the corrective surgery with due care and also blamed the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 for cutting the perineal wall too deep and also not suturing with care.
4. Thereafter, she was discharged from the C.S.M. Nursing Home on 11.10.2008 and she was advised to take further antibiotics and also go for a review after 10 days and to consider for another surgery after 3 months. The Complainant issued a notice dated 10.10.2008 to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards expenditure and compensation for their negligence and careless surgical procedure done and improper line of treatment given to the Complainant and for causing great suffering and mental agony to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 sent a reply dated 01.11.2008 denying the allegations made in the Complainant’s notice and also referring to some of the authorities regarding complications of Episiotomy and also a decided case. She was again admitted on 26.01.2009 in C.S.M. Nursing Home and underwent another surgery on 28.01.2009 for fistulectomy with perineal body repair/sigmoid Luke-colostomy and she was discharged on 12.02.2009 and she was continuing the treatment being attended by the consultants there. The Complainant had to spend several lakhs of rupees for her treatment and her husband suffered heavy loss and also he had to take huge loans to treat the Complainant. Her husband could not continue his milk vending business as he was attending on her throughout and the new born baby and the Complainant had to suffer continuously and is still suffering on account of the negligence of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties did not provide the case sheet and other report and records of the Complainant, the husband of the Complainant sent letter dated 04.02.2009 seeking for the same and only after that they sent some of the case records which did not contain the full details. The Complainant is being treated in the Government General Hospital from 14.02.2009 till date and she has undergone two further surgeries on 09.08.2010 and 19.09.2010.
5. In spite of all these treatments the perineal wound has not healed and the Complainant is still suffering. The Complainant’s husband wrote to the Government about the negligence of the Opposite Parties but the Government by its reply dated 16.12.2009 informed that they will not be able to give any compensation in respect of private nursing homes. The Complainant’s husband sent a letter dated 16.02.2010 to the 3rd Opposite Party seeking for further case records and another letter dated 01.04.2010 to the 1st Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 by reply dated 08.05.2010 furnished some more case sheets relating to the surgical records of the Complainant. The Complainant has also filed the various receipts for the various medical expenses incurred by her. It is pertinent to point out that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 did not give any receipts for the expenses incurred by the Complainant with them. She is not able to lead a normal life and also matrimonial life with her husband and they cannot have any other child because of the perineal wound caused by the negligent act of the Opposite Parties 1&2, the motion passing through the said wound and the recurrence of the recto vaginal fistula caused inability to take care of her child as a mother and suffered with both mental and physical agony continuously. Hence, the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant for the same with costs of the Complainant.
6. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 1st & 2nd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:
The Complainant delivered a healthy male baby by normal delivery. The mother and child were normal and healthy while delivering the baby and episiotomy was done. An episiotomy is done as a prophylactic against measure soft-tissue-trauma since vaginal tears can occur during childbirth. Most often at the vaginal opening as the baby’s head passes through especially if the baby descends, quickly tears can involve the perineal skin or extend to the muscles and the anal sphincter and anus. The obstetrician may decide to do a surgical cut to the perineum with scissors or scalpel (episiotomy) to make the baby’s birth easier and prevent severe tears that can be difficult to repair. The cut is repaired with stitches (Sutures) During the delivery apart from the administration of RL by IV, injections such as inj. Xylocaine, Syntosin, Methergin & Prostadin, inj.Xone, Voveran were given. The Uterus contracted and there was no undue bleeding. On 25.08.2008 the patient was not anemic. The pulse and BP were normal and episiotomy wound was clean. As the patient and baby were comfortable they were discharged, with advise to continue antibiotic for 5 days and came back for review after 5 days. Infact on 27.08.2008 the patient came to the 1st Opposite Party hospital for review and it was found that there was slight puss formation in the episiotomy wound. This being a common occurrence in the abnormal delivery and she was given antibiotic and pain killer for the same. Subsequently the Complainant never came back to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties not aware of the Complainant visiting the 3rd Opposite Party Hospital and the happenings thereafter. The Opposite Parties had sent a detailed reply notice on 01.11.2008 pointing out in a detail that the treatment given to the Complainant despite which the Complainant chose to file this Complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.
7. The 2nd Opposite Party has taken great care in administrating the treatment as per medical protocol and effecting normal delivery of a male baby to the Complainant. It is pertinent to note that as per medical protocol and medical literature the treatment given to the patient was strictly along the lines as prescribed. The Apex Court has observed that the inadequacies of the system, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature of human psychology itself and sheet chance may have combined to produce a result in which the doctor’s contribution is either relatively or completely blameless. The human body and its working condition is nothing less than a highly complex machine. The 2nd Opposite Party possessed the required skill and had also administered timely treatment using the said skills and that they exercised a duty of care in the administration of the treatment. As there is no Medical negligence or Deficiency in Service rendered to the Complainant, there is no cause of action against the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties and the Complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
8. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 3rd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The Complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation since she was admitted in the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties hospital on 24.08.2008 and came to this Opposite Party on 02.09.2008 and got discharged on 17.09.2008 and again went to C.S.M. Nursing Home on first week of October 2008. But the case was filed in the year 2011 vide C.C.S.R. 132 of 2011, after a period of 2 years. Hence, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Complainant came to his hospital on 02.09.2008. On examining the patient it was noticed by the 3rd Opposite Party, the Complainant underwent normal delivery with forceps and in view of that there was a perineal tear and a wound with external anal sphincter gaping with passing of motion through Vagina instead of Anus. Hence, patient was advised by the 3rd Opposite Party to have re-suturing of the wound by admitting there itself as in-patient. The patient was taken care of by this Opposite Party without any lapses. Antibiotic injections were administered on the patient along with medicines and also wound dressing was done for more than 4 days. Inspite of it, there was no progress in healing of the wound. So it was advised to close the wound by re-suturing. On 06.09.2008, the same was done in the presence of anesthetist, surgeon and gynecologist performed re-suturing after written consent was given by the patient in the prescribed form.
9. That after re-suturing she was in the hospital for 10 days for post operative treatment. Wound dressing and antibiotic injection was given for the 10 days and got discharged on 17.09.2008. At the time of discharge, she felt more comfort and was given instruction for the review in future. She failed to follow the advice when she felt better i.e from 1st Oct 2008. The Complainant admits that only in the end of October 2008 she got pain and irritation in the same place and she went to another hospital after a period of 20 days and not approached this Opposite Party when there is specific instruction to come up for follow up, the patient did not turn up and now made allegations against this Opposite Party which is not at all sustainable in law. Therefore, there is no negligent on the part of the 3rd Opposite Party in treating the patient. The case history furnished would also clearly reveal that there is no negligence on the part of the 3rd Opposite Party. He has also exercised due care and caution in treating the patient. Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above Complaint as devoid of merits with exemplary cost.
10.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether the Complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?
11. POINT NO:1
The 3rd Opposite Party contended that the Complainant is barred by limitation as the Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 24.08.2008 and lastly during 1st week of October 2008 she took treatment at CSM Nursing Home and the case was filed in the year 2011 after a period of two years and therefore the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Complainant pleaded in Para 14 of the Complaint that she was also treated at the Government General Hospital from 14.02.2009 and she undergone two further surgeries on 09.08.2010 and 19.09.2010. The Complainant also filed Ex.A44 document in respect of treatment taken by her at the Government General Hospital. As the Complainant took treatment till 2010, the Complaint filed in the year 2011 is very much within the limitation period and therefore we hold that the Complainant is not barred by limitation and it is maintainable.
12.POINT : 2
The admitted facts are that the Complainant was developed with labour pain on 24.04.2008 and she was admitted with the 1st Opposite Party Hospital on the same day for delivery and the 2nd Opposite Party who is the director of the 1st Opposite Party hospital and Gynecologist who attended the delivery and the Complainant delivered a male baby at 8.32 p.m on that day and further at the time of delivery the 2nd Opposite Party done Episiotomy to deliver the baby and after giving treatment to her, she was discharged on the next day on 25.08.2008 and at the time of discharge Ex.A2 discharge summary was issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant and after 2 days on 27.05.2008, the Complainant went to the 1st Opposite Party hospital, since she developed with intense pain with pricking sensation and thereafter she continuous to suffer with the same aliment of discharge of pus and the motion was coming out from the sutured area, she got admitted in the 3rd Opposite Party hospital on 02.09.2008 and she was discharged from the hospital on 17.09.2008 and the discharge summary issued by the 3rd Opposite Party is marked Ex.A10.
13. According to the Complainant when she was admitted in the 1st Opposite Party Hospital for delivery, the 1st Opposite Party adopted surgical procedure for delivery in a negligent manner and thereby caused perineal wound to her and no care was taken while putting the sutures to the injury in the anal canal and thereafter, after two days of discharge, when she again went to them for discharge of pus and motion was coming out at the sutured site, no one has attended on her and therefore the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have committed Deficiency in Service at the time of delivery and as far as 3rd Opposite Party is concerned she was admitted by him on 02.09.2008 and after treatment she was discharged on 17.09.2008 and however he had also not treated her perineal wound made to her at the time of surgery and without treating her properly re-suturing was done to her and thereafter she took treatment from 26.01.2009 to 12.02.2009 at CSM Nursing Home and they have only done the perineal wound repair and she continued treatment at the Government General Hospital and therefore the 3rd Opposite Party also treated the Complainant by not giving treatment for the said perennial wound repair and therefore the 3rd Opposite Party also committed Deficiency in Service.
14. Admittedly the Complainant was admitted for delivery at the 1st Opposite Party hospital and she was attended by the 2nd Opposite Party for delivery and at the time of delivery the 2nd Opposite Party/Doctor who had done Episiotomy and the Complainant delivered a male baby on 24.08.2008 at 8.32 p.m. The Complainant alleged negligent against the 2nd Opposite Party/ Doctor at the 1st Opposite Party hospital at the time of delivery by cutting the vaginal wall too deep and made cut in the anal canal and caused injury and made opening and did not take remedial care to the Complainant. Ex.A2 is the discharge summary issued by the 1st Opposite Party hospital for the Complainant for delivery of the child. The discharge summary discloses that the Episiotomy done by the 2nd Opposite Party for delivery.
15. According to the Complainant she had pain with discharge of pus and motion through the sutured wound and due to that she went to the 1st Opposite Party hospital on 27.08.2008 and nobody treated her on that day. However in the written version of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 admits that the Complainant came for review in the 1st Opposite Party hospital on 27.08.2008 and there was slight pus formation in the Episiotomy wound and however she was treated with antibiotic pain killer and advised her to come back and however the Complainant did not turn up. The Complains of the Complainant is that pus and motion are being discharged through the sutured area all along the period from 27.05.2008 onwards. If it is so, once pus comes out in the sutured area, it certainly establishes that the wound has been infected. Further when the motion comes out from the rectum through the sutures of the perineal tear, it clearly proves that a tubular passage has been formed between the rectal area to perineal area . Such a passage is also termed as fistulae would have formed because of the said injury.
16. The Complainant got admitted in the 3rd Opposite Party hospital on 02.09.2008 and discharged on 17.09.2008 as per Ex.A10 discharge summary and Ex.A11 case sheet. In Ex.A10 the 3rd Opposite Party stated that the patient admitted for the sufferings of pus and motion draining from sutured part of Episiotomy and irritating pain in the anus. The Ex.A11 case sheet reveals that vaginal wound and perinial wound infected and gapping present. This fact proves that at the time of doing Episiotomy rectal injury has been caused by the 2nd Opposite Party and that is why motion comes out through the sutured area. The medical records were sent to the Government Hospital for women and children, Chennai – 8 for opinion and after perusing the records by Dr. Geetha Prasad, Prof. of O&G gave opinion against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 as follows.
1.Raghavi Hospital Mogasppai East, Chennai-37.
Analyzing the records of the above hospital Mrs.Visalakshmi, W/o.Vettrivel, Primi delivered by Labour Natural with Episitomy on 24.08.2008 in Raghavi Hospital Hospital, Mogappai East, Chennai – 37, patient developed faecal incontinence as early as the post natal day due to ano-rectal injury (III/IV Perineal tear) which was obviously missed.
According to records available, duration of Labour, Birth Weight of Baby (3.2kg) where within normal limits. And there was no instrumental delivery.
As Primi parity itself is a risk factor (4% per rectal Examination after delivery should be done to recognize perineal tears (Occult/clinically recognize perineal tears) which was not performed in this case.
Though injury to anal sphincter complex is 0.4 – 2.05% after vaginal deliveries recognition & proper repair immediately after delivery will prevent serious complication like recto vaginal fistula, which was missed in this case.
17. As per the above opinion, it is learnt Opposite Parties 1&2 miserably failed to note the rectal injury initially and thereby failed to give necessary treatment at that moment itself. If they done their duty properly the alleged rectal injury should not have happened which only amounts to negligence on the part of Opposite Parties 1 & 2. In furtherance, even rectal injury has been diagnosed in the 1st Opposite Party hospital and the act of failure to inform the same to the patient is also negligent. In this case also the 2nd Opposite Party has not informed the rectal injury caused by her at the time of doing Episiotomy for delivery is negligent on her part. As the 2nd Opposite Party conducted delivery at the 1st Opposite Party hospital, the 1st Opposite Party also severally liable for the deficiency committed by the 2nd Opposite Party.
18.From the foregoing discussion along with Ex.C1 and from the available other documents and evidence of the Complainant, she has proved that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have caused rectal injury at the time of delivery and further when the Complainant herself gone to them on 27.08.2008 with a Compliance that pus and motion discharged through the sutured area, the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not taken any steps to repair the rectal injury caused by the 2nd Opposite Party negligently and had simply given some antibiotics and sent her to home irresistibly, leads to a conclusion that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have committed Deficiency in Service to the Complainant at the time of her delivery.
19.The 3rd Opposite Party pleaded in his written version that on examining the Complainant, it was noticed by him that she underwent normal delivery with forceps and in view of that there was a perennial tear and a wound with external and sphincter gapping with passing of motion through vagina instead of anus and hence he advised her to have re-suturing of the wound by admitting there itself as inpatient. She was administered with antibiotic injections with medicines and also wound dressing was done for more than four days and since there was no progress in healing they have closed the wound be re-suturing on 06.09.2008 and continued the post-operative treatment with antibiotic injection and discharged on 17.09.2008. Even then the Complains by patient is that discharge of pus and motion through vagina in the sutured area still persists. This fact admitted by the 3rd Opposite Party when such a discharge proves that the wound in the rectal area was infected. Further the 3rd Opposite Party has not taken any steps to repair the wound and simply he had closed the wound by re-suturing is a deficiency on his part. In Ex.C1 after analyzing the records in this case the Dr.Geetha Prasad opinion against the 3rd Opposite Party follows:
1.S.K.S.Hospital, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai
Analyzing the records of the above hospital D & Complaint & secondary suturing of perineal wound was done which also failed.
Reason for doing D & C was not mentioned and is not warranted during secondary suturing.
Patient was not adequately evaluated and counseled regarding the repair of III & IV degree perineal tear. Success and failure of the procedure and necessity for colostomy in future was not discussed with patient and relatives.
2.As first attempt will give best results adopting guidelines and pre/intra/post operative protocols including expert (Surgical Gastro Entomologist) in secondary suturing procedure, was not done in this case.
20. The 3rd Opposite Party have done D & C to the Complainant. D & C is independent of the repair of the rectal injury and is not relevant to the case in hand. Once the repair of rectal injury fails, re-suturing immediately by the 3rd Opposite Party is of not any use, since it also failed due to infection. Even after discharge by the 3rd Opposite Party, the Complainant undergone treatment at CSM nursing home at West Mambalam. Also taken CT scan and found that “Fistula tract extending from the anal canal to the vagina seen.” After doing such investigation they have treated the Complainant for Fistula injury. Therefore from the discussions we hold that the 3rd Opposite Party also failed to repair the rectal injury and simply re-sutured the infected wound negligently and thereby the 3rd Opposite Party also committed Deficiency in Service in treating the Complainant for her rectal injury.
21. POINT NO:3
The Complainant admitted for delivery on 24.08.2008 and during the time of delivery, the 2nd Opposite Party caused rectal injury and that was not repaired by her and subsequently at the 3rd Opposite Party during January and February 2009 she took treatment at CSM Nursing Home, Chennai and for the same cause, she also took treatment at the Government General Hospital for the period 14.12.2009 to 31.08.2010 as per Ex.A43 series. Hence the Complainant took treatment more than two years. Therefore during this period the Complainant definitely suffered with pain and mental agony is for a longer period can be accepted. Similarly during that period, she could not have taken care of her family members is also a sufferings to her. Further, the Complainant filed Ex.A44 bills for taking continuous treatment on different occasions in various hospitals spent by her which amount approximately comes to Rs.1,51,964/- and for the said amount the Complainant is entitled towards medical expenses. In respect of sufferings of the Complainant, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,51,964/-(Rupees one lakh fifty one thousand nine hundred and sixty four only) towards the medical expenses to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.
The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23rd day of December 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 11.08.2008 | Ultrasound scan report given by op1 |
Ex.A2 dated 25.08.2008 | Discharge summary of op1 |
Ex.A3 dated 25.08.2008 | Immunization record |
Ex.A4 dated 02.09.2008 | Advice note of op3 |
Ex.A5 dated 03.09.2008 | Text report of op3 |
Ex.A6 dated 04.09.2008 | Ultrasound report |
Ex.A7 dated 08.09.2008 | Pus culture and sensitivity report |
Ex.A8 dated 09.09.2008 | Prescription of op3 |
Ex.A9 dated 17.09.2008 | Pus culture and sensitivity report |
Ex.A10 dated 17.09.2008 | Discharge summary of op3 |
Ex.A11 dated 02.09.2008 to 17.09.2008 | Case sheet of op3 |
Ex.A12 dated 27.09.2008 | Prescription of op3 |
Ex.A13 dated 01.10.2008 | CT scan report |
Ex.A14 dated 09.10.2008 | CT scan report |
Ex.A15 dated 10.10.2008 | Notice of the Complainant’s counsel to op1 |
Ex.A16 dated 10.10.2008 | Prescription of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A17 dated 11.10.2008 | Discharge summary of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A18 dated 11.10.2008 | Receipt for charges |
Ex.A19 dated 20.10.2008 | Prescription of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A20 Oct. 2008 | Complaint to Human Rights Commission by the Complainant’s husband |
Ex.A21 dated 30.10.2008 | Order of the Human Rights Commission |
Ex.A22 dated 01.11.2008 | Reply from op1 |
Ex.A23 dated 05.11.2008 | Order of the National Human Rights Commission |
Ex.A24 dated 19.11.2008 | Prescription of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A25 dated 06.12.2008 | Prescription of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A26 dated 20.12.2008 | Blood test report |
Ex.A27 dated 26.12.2008 | Prescription of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A28 dated 28.01.2009 | Discharge summary of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A29 dated 12.02.2009 | Prescription of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A30 dated 19.02.2009 | Prescription of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A31 dated 09.05.2009 | Prescription of CSM Nursing Home |
Ex.A32 dated 19.10.2009 | Police Complaint |
Ex.A33 dated 24.10.2009 | CSR No.223/2009 |
Ex.A34 dated 04.12.2009 | Letter to op2 for case sheet |
Ex.A35 dated 04.12.2009 | Letter to op3 for case sheet |
Ex.A36 dated 11.12.2009 | Reply from op2 |
Ex.A37 dated 16.12.2009 | Letter from the Government to the Complainant’s husband |
Ex.A38 dated 20.12.2009 | Reply from op3 |
Ex.A39 dated 16.02.2010 | Letter to op3 for fall case sheet |
Ex.A40 dated 10.03.2010 | Fishulogram report |
Ex.A41 dated 01.04.2010 | Letter to op2 for full case sheet |
Ex.A42 dated 08.05.2010 | Reply from op2 |
Ex.A43 dated 14.12.2009 to 31.08.2010 | Government General Hospital case sheet |
Ex.A44 dated 02.09.2008 to 11.03.2010 | Bills and receipts
|
LIST OF DOCUMENT FILED BY THE1st & 2nd OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 dated 23.08.2008 Copy of case sheet
LIST OF DOCUMENT FILED BY THE 3RD OPPOSITE PARTY:
……NIL ……
LIST OF COURT DOCUMENT: |
|
Ex.C1 dated 19.01.2014 Medical Education Department |
|
| |
| |
| |
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.