Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

429/2010

Mrs.Bindu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Balaji Speciality Hospital &another - Opp.Party(s)

V.Manisekaran

25 Jan 2022

ORDER

                                                                               Date of Complaint Filed: 29.11.2010

                                                                                                                                           Date of Reservation       : 16.12.2021

                                                                                                                                           Date of Order                 : 25.01.2022

                                                                     

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

Present:                 Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                               Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                  : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.429/2010

TUESDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

Mrs. Bindu,

W/o. Ravikumar,

No.1/6, Karegam Street,

Rajaji Nagar,

Villivakkam,

Chennai 600 049.                                                                                                                  .. Complainant                                            

..Versus..

1.Sri Balaji Speciality Hospital,

   Plot No.3, 5^th Main Road,

   Natesan Nagar,

   Virugambakkam,

   Chennai – 600 092.

2.Dr. Jayashree,

   Sri Balaji Speciality Hospital,

   Plot No.3, 5^th Main Road, Natesan Nagar,

   Virugambakkam,

   Chennai 600 092.                                                                                                                      .. Opposite parties

******

Counsel for the complainant        : M/s. V. Manisekaran

Counsel for the opposite parties   : M/s. Anand, Abdul & Vinoth Associates

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of Opposite party  and having treated the written arguments of Complainant    as oral arguments of the complainant and we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.

1.The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant in second surgery and to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the mental agony and deficiency in service and to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum ofRs.2,25,000/- towards the damages to the complainant.

2.     The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and written argument.  On the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A31 are marked.   The opposite party has submitted his version, proof affidavit and written notes and on the side of the opposite party documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked.

3.The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The complainant submits that out of her wedlock with Ravikumar, one male child was born on 28.01.2004. the complainant conceived for the second time and she was taking treatment with opposite parties. On 26.02.2009, the complainant consulted with the opposite parties for leakage of water. The opposite parties, after check-up, had informed to the complainant that fluid has become dry and immediately the complainant has to be operated and child has to be taken out. At the time, the complainant’s husband Ravikumar had informed that if mother and child will be safe, he agreed to proceed as per the advice of the opposite parties.

4.     The opposite parties has operated and a female child was born with weight for two kilograms. After delivery, the mother and child was normal. On 27.02.2009, the complainant was suffering from fever. In the next day, i.e on 28.02.2009, she was suffering from heavy fever and also vomiting. On 01.03.2009, at about 11.a.m the child had suffered Jaundice. The Opposite party had advised the complainant to shift the child to Suriya Hospital immediately. The complainant has admitted the child in Suriya Hospital at about 4 p.m. The complainant was also treated at Suriya Hospital as outpatient.

5.     The complainant submits that the treatment given by the Surya Hospital was continued for some time and at one stage, they came to conclusion that infection in the body of the complainant has to be removed. The Suriya Hospital had advised to the complainant to undergo 2^nd surgery. As per the advice of the Suriya Hospital, the complainant undergone surgery on 05.03.2009. After the treatment, the discharge summary of the Suriya Hospital states that Focal fluid collected anterior to Uttress laparotomy/drainage of fluid and washing peritoneum. Further the discharge summary discloses the Blood clots were removed. After the Surgery, the complainant has to be in the Hospital for ten days. As per the Insurance claim, the Insurance Department informed the complainant that she is eligible for Rs.15,000/- only as past scissorian complications. Hence the Hospital discharged the complainant on 10.03.2009. the complainant submits that for the past scissorian expenses, she had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,846/- to Suriya Hospital towards treatment. Further she had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical bills. The complainant has paid Rs.7,000/- for other miscellaneous expenses. In altogether, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,34,098/- towards the treatment at Suriya Hospital.

6.     The complainant submits that due to the negligence and deficiency of service in the first surgery done by the Opposite party, the complainant entered into complications which resulted in undergo the 2^nd surgery immediately. The case of the Suriya Hospital states that because of the deficiency and negligence on the part of the first surgery caused complications.

7.     The complainant submits that she had issued a legal notice on 09.09.2009 calling upon the Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- towards the expenditure of the 2^nd surgery and Rs.2,50,000/- towards the mental torture and agony and a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards the damages to the complainant. The said notice was received by the Opposite parties, but failed to give reply. Hence this complaint is filed.

8.         Written Version of the Opposite parties in Brief:-

        The complainant was admitted in to the 1^st opposite party hospital on 26.02.2009 at 9.40 am with the complaints of labour pain and rupture of membrane. There was a history of pre-mature rupture of membranes more than 11 hrs at the time of admission. Emergency caesarean was planned, because she was a case of previous LSCS with breech with 36 weeks gestation with PROM in labour. Informed consent was obtained from the complainant and her husband. An LSCS was done and a female baby was delivered. On examination the baby was vigorous at birth, cried well after resuscitation. On 27.02.2009, the first post operative day the patient was normal and she was started on intermittent sips of fluid after 24 hrs of surgery. On 28.02.2009 the second post operative day the patient passed flatus, was started on soft diet and bowel sounds were heard. The 2^nd postnatal day the baby was normal with mild jaundice. The patient was on IV antibiotics on the day of LSCS, 1^st & 2^nd Post operative day.  On 01.03.2009 the patient was started on oral anti-biotic and the patient and she informed that she had passed motion. The patient had mild beching, prokinetics was given. Since the patient had cough a bronchodilator cough syrup was given. On 01.03.2009 the 3^rd post natal day the child had developed jaundice. Serum billurubin testing was done and simultaneously phototherapy was started. At 3 pm Serum billirubin result showed 18 mg which confirm jaundice. Immediately the child ws referred to Suriya Hospital a higher center which was equipped with a Neonatal ICU for phototheraphy with prior arrangement as advised by the paediatrician. The second opposite party spoke to Dr.Deepa in the said Suriya hospital and referred the Neonate. Mother was discharges afebrile, taking oral feeds at the time of discharge.

9.     On 01.03.2009 the baby was admitted in the Suriya Hospital at Saligramam, for the treatment of neonatal Jaundice. The child was kept in the phototheraphy unit and in NICU care. On 02.03.2009 the complainant was on the advice of the 2^nd opposite party was admitted in the Suriya Hospital at Saligramam in Chennai with complaints of vomiting and pain in the abdomen. On admission on the request of the 2^nd Opposite party the complainant was seen by Dr. A.Senthilvel, Ms, Mch (surgeon).

10.    On examining the patient Dr.Senthilvel found the abdomen was distended, bowel sounds where sluggish. The surgeon suspected intestinal obstruction and or paralytic ileus. The patient was treated in the Suriya Hosital under the consulting care of the 2^nd Opposite party and Dr. Selvamani the surgical gastroenterologist and Dr. Sathish yet another surgical gastroenterologist.

11.    On the advice of Dr.Selvamani an ultra sound scan of the abdomen was taken along with a plain x-ray Abdoment. The x-ray revealed multiple fluid levels which suggested paralytic ileus.the ultra sound scan showed dilated bowel loops which yet again was indicative of paralytic ileus.

12.    Base on treating and observing the patient from 02.03.2009 to 05.03.2009, it was decided by Dr.Selvamani and Dr. Sathish in consultation with the 2^nd Opposite party and the anesthetist Dr.P.C.Vijaya kumar to carry out a laparotomy to address the issue of the paralytic ileus.

13.    The laporatomy was done on 05.03.2009 at 7.30 pm. 50 ml of sero sangunious fluid was let out from the space between the uterus and the bladder along with few blood clots which were removed. Saline and metrogyl wash were given, the patient with treated with antibiotics and connected to the pulseoximeter with oxygen flow. Pain killers were also administered.

14.    The 2^nd opposite party reviewed the patient and her intra operative notings are as follows:

1. Uterus involuted
2. Both adnexa normal
3. Posterior wall & broad ligament normal
4. Suture line on the anterior aspect infact

15. The patient was treated with antibiotics and was discharged on 10.03.2009 in good condition. No stretch of imagination can the complainant contend that the complication alleged to have arisen due to the negligence of Opposite party. In fact the 2^nd Opposite party had out of her own volition taken complete responsibility and care of the complainant even in the subsequent hospital namely Suriya Hospital just to ensure the well being mother and baby. Hence it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

16.         Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Whether the complaint is entitled to get his reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
4. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

17.        Point Nos 1 & 2:-

        On perusal of records, it is found that there is no dispute that the complainant was delivered her first baby under LSCS. It is also not disputed that the complainant was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on 26.02.2009 with the complaints of labour pain and rupture of membrane. On the day itself second LSCS was done and a female baby was delivered. On 01.03.2009 the baby had developed Jaundice. Hence the baby was referred to Surya Hospital and the mother / complainant was discharged on the same day to be with the baby. On 02.03.2009 complainant was admitted in the Sooriya Hospital with complaints of vomiting and pain in the abdomen. After examination on 05.03.2009 Laporatomy was done, 50 ml of fluid was let out along with few blood clots which were removed. For the above second operation complaint has spent nearly a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- towards expenses.

18.    According to the complainant due to the negligence and deficiency of service in the first surgery done by the opposite party, the complainant entered into complications which resulted to undergo the second surgery immediately. The complainant stated that the case of the Surya Hospital states that because of the deficiency and negligence on the part of the first surgery caused complications.

19.    According to the opposite parties that the complication of fluid collection and paraletic ileus are as per medical literature is inherent any abdominal surgery. Further in cases when the rupture of membrane occurs near term are preterm in pregnancy  there is a distinct possibility of assisting infection if labour fails to start within 24 hours. Further, it is stated that rupture of the membrane long before term is an important cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality.

20.    On perusal of the discharge summary of the opposite party hospital it is found that the complainant was admitted on 25.02.2009 at about 9.40 am with a complaint of mild pain and leakage since last night. Emergency repeat LSCS at 2 cm dilatade. Previous LSCS with breach at 36 week gestational with PROM. Extracted a live female baby has breached on 26.02.2009 at 10.030 am. Tubectomy was not done. Mother and baby healthy well. Post operative periods uneventful, during hospital stay. Discharged on 01.03.2009 at 4 pm.

21.    On perusal of discharge summary of Surya Hospital it is found that the complainant was admitted 02.03.2009 with a history of abdominal distension, vomiting, generalized tiredness, decreased intake for the past 4 days. History of underwent LSCS on 26.02.2009 at SBS Hospital. G1 – LSCS 5 years, G2 – LSCS – 5 days back. It was diagnosed as post LSCS intra abdominal sepsis.  Further, the impression is mentioned as “ collection arterial to uterus. In the operation notes it is mentioned as “ focal fluid collection anterial to uterus” Laparotomy are drainage of fluid + washing of peritoneum. Further it is mentioned as peritoneum was removed, Sero saugunious fluid of 50 ml was let out from the space between uterus and bladder (Posterior wall). Few blood clot were removed. Saline wash given. Metrogyl wash was given. Varico suction vein kept in the space between uterus and bladder. Then she was discharged on 10.03.2009.

22.    On perusal of the discharge summary of Surya Hospital does not revealed  the deficiency and negligence was on the part of the first surgery done by the opposite parties and caused the complications to undergo the second surgery immediately. The literature of 18^th edition Williams obstetrics it is mentioned pre term rupturce of the membranes is defined as rupture of membranes  before 38 weeks gestation and is an important cause of maternal and prenatal morbidity and mortality.  Further, it is observed in Thirpoli Medical Centre Libya it is observed the volume of pelvic fluid collection four days post caesarean section is not a predictity of febrile morbidity. post operative fluid collection is common after caesarean section.

23.    In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.1658/2010 with Civil Appeal No. 2322 / 2010 in between Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre Vs. Asha Jaiswal and others. It is observed that in every case where the treatment is not successful all the patients dies during surgery, it can not be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent. To indicate negligence there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered. The negligence alleged should be glaring, in which event the principle res ipsa – loquitur could not be made applicable and not based on perception.

24.    In this case there is no material available on record to prove that the opposite party has committed Medical negligence as against the complainant. Further, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2  are answered.

25.      Points Nos. 3 & 4

We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in the complaint. Accordingly, point Nos. 3 & 4 are answered.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this  the  25^th day of January  2022.

 

         T.VINODHKUMAR                                          R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                              

              MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this  the  25^th day of January  2022.

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

Ex.A1	-	Cash Receipt
Ex.A2	-	Pharmacy Bills (9)
Ex.A3	-	Final Bill
Ex.A4	10.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Admission Receipt
Ex.A5	-	Discharge Summary (SBS)
Ex.A6	-	Discharge Summary (Sooriya)
Ex.A7	03.02.2009	X.Ray Report
Ex.A8	05.03.2009	X-Ray Report
Ex.A9	09.03.2009	X-Ray Report
Ex.A10	04.03.2009	Whole Abdomen Scan Report
Ex.A11	02.03.2009	CT-Scan Abdomen Plain Report
Ex.A12	05.03.2009	CT-Scan Abdomen Contrast Report
Ex.A13	10.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Bill
Ex.A14	02.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Hematology
Ex.A15	02.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital UCU PACK1
Ex.A16	03.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital  Biochemistry &  Electrolytes
Ex.A17	03.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Hematology & Coagulation & Hematology
Ex.A18	03.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Coagulation
Ex.A19	03.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Liver Function Test
Ex.A20	04.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Biochemistry & Electrolytes
Ex.A21	05.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Biochemistry & Electrolytes
Ex.A22	06.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Biochemistry & Electrolytes
Ex.A23	06.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Hematology
Ex.A24	07.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Biochemistry & Electrolytes
Ex.A25	09.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Microbiology
Ex.A26	09.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Microbiology
Ex.A27	13.03.2009	Sooriya Hospital Microbiology
Ex.A28	09.09.2009	Legal Notice
Ex.A29	11.09.2009	Acknowledgement Cards (2)
Ex.A30	16.09.2009	Fist Reply
Ex.A31	13.10.2009	Second Reply

 List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite parties:

 

Ex.B1		Copy of case sheet from the 1st Opposite party Hospital with consent form
Ex.B2		Copy of case sheet from the Sooriya  Hospital with consent form
Ex.B3		Medical Leterature D.C Dutta Text Book Obstetric 5th Edition
Ex.B4		Medical Literature Williams Obstetrics

 

 

       

T.VINODHKUMAR                                              R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                              

       MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT