KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 245/03

JUDGMENT DATED : 25.06.2012

PRESENT:

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR        :  MEMBER

1.                The Administrator,

St. Sebastian’s Hospital,

Cherupuzha P.O.,

Kannur District.                           :  APPELLANTS

2.                Dr. Veena Bhatt,

St. Sebatian’s Hospital,

Cherupuzha.

(By Adv. M/s. M.V. John & Associates)

Vs.

Reena Sebastian, W/o V.O. Sebastian,  :  RESPONDENT

Josgiri, P.O. Josgiri.

(By Adv. A. Ranjith Narayanan)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in CC No.18/97 before the CDRF, Kannur who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated: 22.10.02 wherein and whereby the opposite parties are to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation together with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 1 month from the date of the order of the Forum below.

2.      The complainant had approached the Forum stating that on 4.4.96 at about 5 am she was admitted in the 1^st opposite party hospital with severe labour pain and she was in need of the service of a Gynaecologist and though she had repeatedly requested the Resident Medical Officer on duty to call for the Gynaecologist, the same was not heeded to and only very late that the Gynaecologist came and took out the baby. It is her case that due to the delay and deficiency in service on the part of the doctors in the 1^st opposite party hospital, she had given a still birth to her child and alleging deficiency in service the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs of the proceedings before the Forum.

3.      On notice from the Forum below, the 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. However, it was admitted that the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 4.4.96 at 5.00 am. But it was contended that the Gynaecologist was called for at the appropriate time and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. It was also submitted that the complaint was filed for tarnishing the image and reputation of the hospital and the Gynaecologist. It was the very case of the opposite parties that the complainant was given utmost care and caution and inspite of the best efforts there happened a foetal loss, which was a natural complication. The 1^st opposite party further submitted that the Gynaecologist was present at the time of delivery and that the Gynaecologist was not called for at 5 am itself because there was no need for such a call and it was only later that the situation demanded the presence of the gynaecologist. Submitting that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.      The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 on her side. On the side of the opposite parties the 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and 2 doctors were examined as DW2 and DW3. On the side of the opposite parties Exts. R1 and R2 were marked.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant.

6.      The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the still birth was not due to any prolonged labour as contended by the complainant and that the allegation that nobody has attended the patient in between 5.am and 8.30 am is false and is made only to malign the reputation of the opposite parties. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the Forum below ought to have considered Ext.P3 in its correct perspective and the Forum below did not consider even the findings in post mortem report. He has also argued that the compensation is very much on the higher side. The learned counsel submitted that there was absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the appeal is only to be allowed with costs.

7.      On other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. It is submitted by him that the complainant was brought to the hospital at 5.am and Gynaecologist was called only at 8.30 am and in between 5.am to 8.30 am the child had died. He has also a case that the alleged rupture made by the 2^nd opposite party to accelerate labour is only a cooked up story and it was done only to escape from responsibility to attend the delivery at the proper time. He has advanced the contention that had the 2^nd opposite party been called at 5 am itself the complainant would not have lost her precious child. Submitting that the Forum below had appreciated each and every aspect of the case the learned counsel argued for the dismissal of the appeal with compensatory costs.

8.      On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records, it is found that the fact that the complainant was admitted at the 1^st opposite party hospital on 4.4.96 at 5.am is not disputed by either side. It is also found that the Gynaecologist was called only at 8.30 am. The main contention of the complainant is that if the Gynaecologist was called at 5.am itself the complainant would not have lost her precious child. It is found that the opposite parties had taken a spacious ground that there was no need to call the Gynaecologist at 5.am or immediately thereafter. It is contended by them at as soon as the situation warranted the calling of a Gynaecologist, the Gynaecologist was called for and proper attention and care were given to the complainant and inspite of the best efforts the complainant delivered a still born baby. However, the opposite parties have no case that the complainant and her bystanders did not ask for calling the Gynaecologist and also that the Resident Doctor was a Gynaecologist. In the back drop of the fact that the resident doctor was a non Gynaecologist and the case to be attended was a delivery, it is quite normal that the service of a Gynaecologist was necessary and that if anything had happened inspite of the efforts of the Gynaecologist to save the baby, it could have been found that it was only the natural outcome that the complainant had given a still birth. We are also not inclined to accept the case the learned counsel for the appellants that the police had referred the case after investigation. Having found that there was no Gynaecologist to attended the complainant from 5am to 8.30 am who was admitted for delivery at 5 am the Forum below is just and correct in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is also found that the Forum below had awarded Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. It is to be noted that even in the lawyer notice only Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed. It is also found that the complainant had not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim that an amount of Rs.2,00,000./- was needed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found that Rs.1,00,000/- will be just and proper to meet the ends of justice. However, the costs ordered is sustained.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same shall carry interest at 9% p.a from the date of complaint till payment.

In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

The office is directed to return the LCR to the Forum below along with a copy of this order.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :  MEMBER

Da.