BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 12th day of March, 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAIANT NO.2/2009
Amudha, W/o Purushothaman,
No.22, I Cross, Thendral Nagar,
Pudusaram, Puducherry, Rep. by
Her Power of Attorney Agent,
Santha, W/o Velayudham, residing
At the same address …………. Complainant
Vs.
1. St. Joseph Hospital (Cluny), Rep. by its
Administrator, No.16, Romain Rolland St.,
Puducherry
2. Dr.Kalavani, working at
St. Joseph Hospital,
No,16, Romain Rolland Street,
Puducherry. ………… Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Thiru.S.Anandabaskharan
Advocate, Puducherry
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Thiru.A.Gandhiraj,
Advocate, Puducherry
O R D E R
(Tmt K.K.Ritha, Member)
Brief Facts of the Complaint:
On 13.03.2008, the complainant was diagnosed for Myoma Uterus through Sonogrphy and advised for surgery by Dr Flora, the retired Chief Health Officer, Government Maternity Hospital, Puducherry. On 22.03.2008, the complainant approached O.P.1s Hospital and on 24.03.2008 she was admitted for undergoing the necessary tests. O.P.2 examined her and took sample of the myoma for test, for which the complainant had paid the charges.
2. On 07.04.2008, the complainant was admitted for undergoing operation in O.P.1s hospital and a sum of Rs.9,500/- was paid towards it. She was operated on 09.04.2008 and discharged on 17.04.2008. In the course of the operation, her uterus and both the ovaries were removed along with myoma and thus deprived her from motherhood.
3. After the operation, the complainant was passing urine incessantly. So, she was admitted in the O.P.1's hospital on 22.04.2008 and an ultra-sound scan was taken. The O.P.1s hospital without taking any steps to arrest the incessant passing of the urine, had discharged her on 24.04.2008 by charging Rs.1,340/- towards medical expenses. Again, on 27.04.2008, she was admitted in O.P.1s hospital for the same complaint of non-stop passing of urine. She was kept for 3 days and discharged on 30.04.2008 with an advice to get admitted in the Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry by giving recommendation letter to Dr.Vasudevan of the hospital. So, on 30.04.2008, she was taken to the causality in the Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry for admission, but could not do so, since Dr.Vasudevan would not be available for a week. At that time, the condition of the complainant was serious and fast deteriorating, so she was admitted in Nallam Clinic, Puducherry on the same day, 30.04.2008 by making payment of Rs.3,000/- towards preliminary expenses for the treatment. In the clinic, Dr.VijayOza found that the incessant passing of urine was due to the snapping of urine canal tube while removing the myoma in the uterus. On 01.05.2008, she was operated again by Dr.VijayOza to stop the incessant oozing of urine. She became normal, for which a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid as medical charges and discharged her on 05.05.2008.
4. The complainant was put to excessive sufferings and mental agony due to the negligence of the opposite parties in causing damage to her urinary canal by cutting the same during uterus operation and removal of the ovaries by making her an invalid woman. Due to these grievances, the complainant had issued an Advocate notice on 10.08.2008 to the opposite parties seeking damages. The opposite parties replied stating that the complainant got discharged against medical advice and incessant passing of urine was not due to any negligence on their part leading to any deficiency in service. The complainant also alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for their failure to take immediate steps to call Senior Doctor from outside hospital for attending the complainant at a critical stage. Also discharging the complainant for further treatment to get admitted in Government General Hospital, Puducherry and for further treatment without giving history of her case also amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, the complainant prayed Rs.20,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.28,408/- for medical expenses and for costs.
Submissions of Opposite Parties 1 and 2:
5. The opposite parties 1 and 2 denied all the allegations levelled against them by the complainant and stated that O.P.1s hospital is a Charitable Institution with qualified and specialized Doctors serving the public with a clean record for more than 50 years. Also, the medical services rendered free of costs to the poor and also at reasonable cost. The O.P.No.2 – Dr.Kalavani who treated the complainant was having more than 35 years of good service record in the field of Gynecology. The complainant before making aspersions against the Doctor should establish direct connection with the treatment given and the injury suffered by her.
6. On 22.03.2008, the complainant approached O.P.1s hospital with acute abdominal pain. She was referred by another private medical practitioner with a complaint of fibroid. The 2nd opposite party after examining and conducting tests, discharged her on 27.03.2008 with the advice to come to the hospital with histopathology report. The report disclosed that the complainant was suffering from chronic unspecific cervicities and proliferative endometrium with foci Hyperplacia. The 2nd opposite party and other Doctors in the hospital explained about the seriousness of the disease and the risk and consequences of such operation. The complainant gave her consent for hysterectomy and also for any other operation that may be found necessary by O.P.No.2 during the operation.
7. On 09.04.2008, the 2nd opposite party while conducting Laparotomy, found filmsy omental adhesions and both ovaries cystic, fallopian tubes were normal but uterus was bulky. So total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salphingo ovariotomy was necessary to avoid future health problems. Hence, while operating for myoma, the ovaries were also removed. If cystic ovaries were not removed, it might end in serious complicated health problems. The 2nd opposite party visualized those health hazards and removed the cystic ovaries in good faith with the consent of the complainant. The allegations of the complainant for her incapacity to give birth to child is frivolous, since she had already undergone tubectomy 10 years before the hysterectomy done on 09.04.2008 by the 2nd opposite party. By undergoing hysterectomy, removing uterus voluntarily by the complainant, it is impossible for the complainant or any woman to give birth to a child. Moreover, the Expert Report, dt.17.12.2009 stated that the surgery for Myoma Uterus involved removal of the uterus in majority of the cases, which could not be considered as negligence and the complainant's claim that future pregnancy was impossible by the removal of ovaries was also untenable.
8. Further, the opposite parties stated the operation was successful. The complainant was passing normal quantity of urine and her abdominal pain subsided and she was discharged on 17.04.2008 in good state with an advice to report to the hospital after a month for general check up. On 22.04.2008, the complainant came to the hospital with a complaint of head-ache and vomiting. She was treated for the same and conducted urine test to detect any urinary tract infection. When the treatment was in progress, the complainant got discharged herself on 24.04.2008 at her own request and risk to pursue treatment from another Higher Institution. All the reports regarding her treatment and investigations were given to her. On 27.04.2008, the complainant came to O.P.No.1s hospital for re-admission with the complaint of watery discharge from her vagina. Then, she was put on bladder drainage as per Urologist s advice and intravenous phylogram was done on 29.04.2008. Also, the Urologist reviewed and advised the complainant to undergo cystoscopy for which the necessary equipments to conduct the said tests were not available in the O.P.1s Hospital. So, she was advised to get admitted in any hospital where such facilities were available. Due to complainant's financial insufficiency to get treatment from such hospitals, she preferred to get treatment from the Government General Hospital, Puducherry where such facilities were available. At the request of the complainant, she was discharged and admitted in Government General Hospital, Puducherry. Her condition at that time was normal.
9. The opposite parties had no knowledge about the treatment at the Government General Hospital, Puducherry or at Clinic Nallam. Hence, the opposite parties could not be held responsible for complainants health problem after her operation as, there was no error, carelessness or negligence in the treatment rendered by 2nd O.P. during 07.04.2008 to 30.04.2008. Moreover, the 2nd opposite party had conducted hysterectomy and ovirotomy by a procedure known and recognized by medical science. Hence, there was no deficiency in service and the complainant not entitled for any compensation from the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
10. On complainants side, the complainant examined herself as CW1 and marked documents, Exs.C1 to C73, also examined CW2, the Administrative Officer of Clinic Nallam, Puducherry and CW 3, Dr.Vijay Oza on her side and. On the side of opposite parties, Dr.Kalavani, O.P.No.2, was examined as RW1 and marked documents Exs.R1 to R15. Both complainant and opposite parties had submitted their written statements.
DISCUSSION:
i) Whether the complaint filed through the Power Agent is maintainable in law or not and whether the complaint is barred by limitation
11. The opposite parties raised the issue whether the complaint filed through the power agent of the complainant/CW1 is maintainable in law. Under Section12(1)(a) of C.P.Act, 1986, a complaint can be filed only by the consumer. By virtue of Section 18 of the Act, Section 12 is made applicable to the disposal of disputes before this Commission. The definition of consumer, complainant and a complaint defined u/s 2(d), 2(b), 2(c) respectively read with Section 12 of the Act would mean that the complaint should be presented by CW1, the Consumer in writing and duly signed by her/him. In this case, the complaint was signed by V.Shantha as the complainant and not the intended consumer Viz. CW1, Amutha. Hence, there is no complaint by the consumer and the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
12. Moreover, Section 30(2) of the Act does not enable the Government of Puducherry to make Rules under Section 12 of the Act to enable Power Agent to present complaints in violation of Section 12 of the Act. The definition of the word Agent Rule 2(b) of the Pondicherry Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 cannot be construed as Power Agent of the consumer and so, Rules cannot overshadow the Act. Since the Rules made by the Govt. of Pondicherry u/s 31(2) of the C.P.Act, 1986 has not been given any effect, the Pondicherry Consumer Protection Rules is non-est in law. Hence, there is no proper complaint made by the consumer and in the absence of a complaint, the case ceases to be a consumer complaint. Regarding the maintainability of the complaint, contrary to complainant's view the opposite parties are entitled to raise the issue at any time during the course of enquiry as it is a summary proceeding.
13. Also the Power Agent Mrs.Santha had filed her chief examination as CW1 through Affidavit, dated 28.09.2010 but made an endorsement in the Affidavit on 10.02.2011, that the affidavit may be discarded. She did not present herself for cross-examination by the opposite parties which is a serious lapse on her part.
14. In this connection, the opposite parties filed the following citations.
1. V.N.Srikhande (Dr.) Vs, Anita Sena Fernandes reported in (2011) I Supreme Court Cases at Page 53 held at Para -14 (Page 61).
Para – 14: If the Forum concerned is satisfied that the complainant does not disclose any grievance which can be redressed under the Act then it can reject the complaint at the threshold after recording the reasons for doing so.
Para-15: If the complaint is not filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action had arisen and if the complainant does not seek condonation of delay u/s 24 (a)(ii), the Consumer Forum will have to dismiss the same.
Para-17: The admission of the complaint under the Act should be a Rule and dismissal – an exception.
The Honble Supreme Court stressed that the complaint should be presented by the consumer only within a period of two years.
In this case, the complainant had filed the complaint within two years from the cause of action and there is no necessity to file any condonation of delay.
- (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 750
Sinnamani& Others Vs. G.Vettivel& Others.
When the statutory provision clearly says as to how the suit has to be instituted. It can be instituted only in that manner alone, and no other manner – Certain legislations specifically provide for conversion of original petition into a suit.
The present complaint before this Commission is to follow the principles of natural justice and not through any cumbersome procedure since it is a consumer complaint.
15. The complainant resisted the opposite parties stating that the complaint was filed by the complainant on 18.02.2009 through her Power Agent, Santha, who is none other than her own mother. On 28.09.2008 under Ex.C59, the complainant authorized her Power Agent to file the complaint before the State Commission against the opposite parties. At that time, she was immobilized and has been advised bed rest after her surgery for removal of myoma in her uterus. No such objection was raised by the opposite parties in their counter and also no additional counter was filed with such objections. As such, the opposite parties are estopped from raising the objections at a later stage when the case had been fully adjudicated and reached the argument stage. The complainant states that the complaint was filed u/s 12 r/w Section 17 of the Act, which is the provision for receiving the complaint by the Consumer Forum. Since the prayer for compensation is higher, the complaint has been filed before this Commission. The Rule 4(8) of the Pondicherry Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 enable the complainant , opposite party or its authorized agents to appear and file through an agent before the Forum. Under Section 13, if the complainant or his authorized agent fails to appear before the District Forum on the hearing date, the District Forum may dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit. If the opposite party or its authorized agent fails to appear on the day of hearing, the District Forum may decide the complaint exparte.
16. In the present case, the complaint was presented through the Power Agent. The principal had participated in all the proceedings and had given evidence also. The reasons for authorizing the agent to file the complaint was furnished in the Power Deed, Ex.C59 that she was advised bed rest for not less than six months after surgery. Hence, the complaint was filed through the Power Agent.
17. Moreover, the opposite parties question regarding the Rule making power of the Govt. of Puducherry can be made only by way of writ filed in High Court and not before this Commission. Thus, the O.Ps have to abide by the Act and the Rules.
18. To highlight the above contentions, the complainant had filed the following authorities.
1. 2008 CPJ (317) (NC)
The parents of aggrieved person or his Power of Attorney entitled to file complaint. Technicalities need not be encouraged under the Act.
2. 2014 (3) CPR 236 (NC)
Consumer Forum is primarily meant to provide protection to consumers and their claims cannot be defeated on technical grounds.
3. R.P.No.2721/2007 of National CommissionConsumer Education & Research Society &An.rVs.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Unfortunately, in the present case, an over technical view has been taken by the State Commission and the District Forum in dismissing the complaint by holding that father/mother of an aggrieved person or his Power of Attorney is not entitled to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This is erroneous. It is to be reiterated that under the Act, technicalities are not encouraged because the only procedure, which is prescribed under the Act is to follow the principles of Natural Justice and to decide the matter after hearing both the parties.
4. 2014(3) CPR 236 (NC)
Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs. KebalkKishanBarm& Others
The Act is a Legislation for social benefit meant to protect the interests of consumers. The provisions of the Act is to adopt a constructive effort and not to get bogged down by hyper technicalities of procedure. The principles of Natural Justice have to be scrupulously observed.
FINDINGS:
19. In the present case, the reason for authorizing the agent to file the complaint has been mentioned in the Power-Deed, Ex.C59 that Amutha was under bed rest for six months after the surgery. Under such circumstances, the complaint was presented through Power Agent and the principal has participated in all the proceedings and given her evidence.
20. Rule 2 (b) of The Pondicherry Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 defines Agent as a person duly authorized by a party to present any complaint or appeal or reply on its behalf before the State Commission or the District Forum.
21. The Pondicherry Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 has already been made and notified in G.O.Ms.No.16, dt.22.08.1987. The same has not been challenged so far under any proceedings. Unless the same is challenged and nullified, the said Rules are in force and remain applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Hence, the complaint filed through the Power Agent is maintainable and not barred by limitation.
22. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent Legislation that has been passed to render justice to the consumers and mere technicalities should not sway in the way to render justice to the parties. Hence, technicalities cannot be encouraged in order to follow the principles of Natural Justice. Hence, the complaint filed through Power Agent is maintainable and not barred by limitation.
ii) Whether the opposite parties had obtained consent from the complainant for the surgery?
23. According to the complainant the signatures found in consent forms Exs.R1, R6, R11, R12 to R15 were not hers, but, the opposite parties produced many consent forms with her signatures. The reason for producing several such consent forms was unexplained by the opposite parties. O.P.No.2 admitted that usually consent was obtained before the operation and not after the operation and no letter was obtained separately from the complainant before the operation for removal of uterus and ovaries.
24. The complainant alleged that the signatures in the consent forms were fabricated and concocted and filed them belatedly after filing the counter by the opposite parties. Further, the complainant/CW1 deposed that Ex.R1 was her signature but denied her mothers signature in the consent form and her approval for the removal of uterus.
25. The complainant has filed the following citations to highlight the importance of consent:
1. O.P.No.61 of 1996 and 51 of 1996 – NCDRC
Smt Saroj Chandhoke & Others Vs. Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi
In a simple hysterectomy operation, the complainant lost her ovaries and left kidney. She was required to undergo other operations for control of fecal discharge from vagina. She was required to stay in the hospital for complete cure for months – Informed consent was obtained only for TAH. No consent was obtained for removal of ovaries in advance planned surgery. The patient was prepared for TAH and had given written consent for TAH and no consent was obtained or no information was given to the patient that her ovaries would be removed – Both the O.P.s 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the complainant – For finding out deficiency in service, motive is not a relevant ingredient. Act may be bona fide. But if it is performed negligently any error is committed which the ordinary skilled person would not commit, then it is deficiency in service – The complainant is entitled to have a reasonable and adequate compensation, after taking into consideration the fact that some error was committed by the Doctor while performing operation.
Here, consent was obtained only for TAH, but not for removal of ovaries in advance in a planned surgery. There is no proof to show why the ovaries were removed. But, in the case on hand, the ovaries were cystic as per Histopathological Report. So, there is no deficiency in service committed by the O.P.No.2
Here, the patient had given consent for laparoscopy and not for hysterectomy and thus the consent obtained is not a valid one. In the case on hand, the opposite parties had obtained consent for hysterectomy before performing surgery which is a valid consent
26. The opposite parties replied that, on 07.04.2008 when the complainant was admitted in O.P.No.1s Hospital, she was explained that she had to undergo hysterectomy and also oophorectomy, if necessary. Also, explained to her the nature and seriousness of her disease and the risks involved in the operation. Then, the complainant gave her consent for hysterectomy and any other consequential operations, if necessary, to be conducted to relieve her from acute abdominal pain. On 09.04.2008 while conducting laparotomy, the 2nd opposite party found flimsy omental adhesions, both ovaries were cystic and uterus bulky. Thus, the ovaries were removed by the 2nd opposite party in good faith to restore her good health and to avoid any future health problem.
27. The Opposite Parties relied upon the following citations to highlight their stand on consent.
- (2008) 2 SCC
Samira Kohli Vs. Dr.Prabha Manchanda & Another
Medical profession – Medical ethics – Consent of patient required for surgical procedure – In India the extent and nature of information required to be given by Doctors to the patient in order to obtain a valid consent is governed by the Bolam Test and not by the reasonably prudential patient –– It is for the Doctor, with reference to the condition of the patient, nature of illness and the prevailing established practices as to how much information to be given in the best interest of the patient – A Doctor acting accordingly with normal care and in accordance with a recognized medical practice - held cannot be said to be negligent merely because a body of opinion taken contrary view – The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of Doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no Doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of if acting with ordinary care – To establish liability by a Doctor where deviation from normal practice is alleged three facts required to be established – First of all, must be proved that there is a usual and normal practice, secondly it must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice and thirdly, (and this is of crucial importance) it must be established that the course the Doctor adopted is one which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care. The principles relating to consent is 1) A Doctor has to seek and secure the consent of the patient before commencing a treatment. 2) There can be a common consent for diagnostic and operative procedures where they are contemplated. 3) There can also be a common consent for a particular surgical procedure and an additional or further procedure that may become necessary during the course of surgery.
FINDING:
28. It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting treatment, physical investigation, or providing personal care of a patient. Valid consent implies that it is given voluntarily by a competent and informed person. It is a process rather than just a form to be signed. Patient should understand the nature and purpose of the procedure and be informed of any material or significant risks associated with the procedure, alternative treatment, and risks of doing nothing. It is the responsibility of the doctor to inform a patient of a significant risk.
29. Where a patient or his guardian gives his assent to the proposal given by the medical expert, he is deemed to have given consent. When a patient is informed about the nature, manner of treatment, chances of failure and risk involved, etc. prior to obtaining his consent, it can be said that patient has accorded informed consent to the proposed treatment. And informed consent given by a competent person is a valid consent. A valid consent has to be free from undue influence, coercion, etc. and ought to have been obtained when giver of such consent was in sound mental condition.
30. On 07.04.2008, the complainant voluntarily got admitted in O.P.No.1s Hospital after undergoing necessary medical investigations under the guidance of O.P.No.2. She was prepared for surgery for removal of myoma with her consent. As such, the complainant cannot deny that the opposite parties had not obtained consent from her when she had signed in the consent form, Ex.R1 for undergoing the surgery.
31. The signatures of V.Amudha in Tamil vernacular and V.Santha in English are seen in the consent forms, Exs.R1, R6 and Ex.C62 at Page No.11. Their signatures in all the said three documents were found to be similar in nature. The consent form in Ex.C62 at page No.11 wherein the signatures of Amutha as the patient and V.Shantha as guardian has not been disputed by the complainant and thus the said consent form is not a concocted one. The signatures found in Ex.C62 Nallam Clinic document and Exs.R1 and R6, the documents in the custody of opposite parties are found to be similar in nature. From this, we can come to a conclusion that the signatures found in the consent forms, Exs.R1 & R6 and that in Ex.C62 at page No.11 belonged to the signatures of Amutha, the patient and V.Shantha , the guardian. Under such circumstances, the complainant cannot tell a blatant lie before this Commission that the signatures found in the said exhibits does not belong to hers and the guardian, her mother.
32. As such, through Ex.R1, the complainant had given consent for the surgery performed on 09.04.2008. Hence, the allegation levelled against the opposite parties that no consent was obtained from the complainant is baseless and false. Hence, the opposite parties had obtained valid consent from the complainant before conducting the surgery and the complainant's allegation against the opposite parties had to be discarded.
III. whether the opposite parties are negligent in conducting hysterectomy and ovirotomy and also snapping the urinary canal as alleged by the complainant?
33. The complainant was admitted in the O.P.No.1s Hospital only for removal of myoma in the uterus. The ultra sound scan report, Ex.C72, dt.13.03.2008 disclosed uterus bulky – ill defined hypo-echoic mass measuring 4.2 x 4.0 cms noted in the ant aspect of body, cervix and UT canal normal, endometrial thickness 5 mm – rt. Ovary and lt. ovary normal. Final impression – Myoma uterus. The biopsy report, Ex.C73, dt.26.03.2008 taken from Tresor Nursing Home did not reveal anything about the condition of ovaries and uterus. For performing the surgery, the 2nd opposite party relied only upon the scan report of Tresor Nursing Home, but not taken any scan from O.P.No.1s Hospital before conducting hysterectomy and also not produced any document to show that for removing the myoma hysterectomy (removal of uterus) was also necessary.
34. The scan taken on 13.03.2008, Ex.C72 by a reputed Sono Scan Centre, indicated that the ovaries were normal, but the 2nd Opposite Party found after 26 days, i.e. on 09.04.2008, the ovaries cystic, which was unbelievable. Moreover, to prove the ovaries were cystic, the 2nd opposite party had not filed any document. Instead of removing myoma from the uterus, the 2nd opposite party had removed the uterus and ovaries of the complainant which was unwarranted.
35. Another negligence on the part of opposite parties was that after the operation on 09.04.2008 and discharged on 17.04.2008, the complainant was admitted again on 22.04.2008 with the complaint of passing of urine incessantly, but the opposite parties stated that she was admitted on 22.04.2008 for head-ache and vomiting which the complaint alleged as untrue. She was discharged after two days on 24.04.2008 without arresting the passing of urine.Only on 27.04.2008 when she was admitted again, the opposite parties accepted the fact that there was watery discharge from her vagina. Since they were unable to give treatment for the incessant passing of urine, she was referred to Dr.Vasudevan, Urologist, G.H., Puduherry by giving an informal letter Ex.C22. The opposite parties failed to send the case-sheet of the complainant along with the referral letter for further treatment and also in an ambulance with para-medical staff, since the health of the complainant deteriorated due to incessant passing of urine for a week.Since Dr. Vasudevan, G.H., Puducherry was not available for giving her treatment, she was admitted in Nallam Clinic. There she underwent surgery under Dr.Vijaya Oza, CW3 for arresting the incessant passing of urine by spending Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses.
36. Thus, the complainant concluded that the opposite parties were negligent in removing the ovaries without her consent. By this act of the opposite parties, the complainant had lost permanently the chance to beget a child, putting on weight, loss of strength to bones and other complications. Also, O.P.No.2 was negligent in snapping of urine canal, failure to arrest the incessant passing of urine and abandoned her without providing ambulance to shift her to another hospital when her health was deteriorating.On these grounds, the complainant alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and sought relief from them.
37. To prove negligence on the part of opposite parties, the complainant had filed the following authorities:
1. R.P.No.s 1811 & 1812 of 2002 – NCDRC
Dr. Kaligounden Vs. N.Thangamuthu
The respondents wife was advised surgery for removal of her uterus and admitted her in the petitioners Hospital in Erode in the morning of 30.04.1996 and operated on her in the evening on the same day and removed her uterus – The death certified issued indicated that the cause of death as was due to renal failure and septiceamia – The surgeon never carried out any pre-operative assessment to assess the renal functioning of the patient before resorting to surgery in such a hurry for which there was no urgency whatsoever – Deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner established.
In this case, the Doctor failed to carry out pre-operative assessment of the patient about the renal functioning which led to her death. In the present case, the opposite parties have taken all preliminary tests before surgery. She was admitted for this purpose in O.P.No.1s Hospital prior to her surgery. So, there is no similar deficiency in service in the case on hand.
2.. I (2014) CPJ 44 (NC)
Jai Prakash Mehta Vs. B.N.Rai (Dr.) & Another
Medical negligence – burn injuries – wrong treatment – Doctor being E.N.T. specialist did not prima facie possess medical skills to treat serious burn injuries but which he continued to treat for over two weeks – He gave only first-aid treatment which was totally inadequate and ineffective for injuries caused by serious burns – Negligence proved – Compensation awarded.
Here, the patient was treated by an ENT specialist who is not entitled to handle a burn injury patient. So, negligence proved in this case. This citation will not fit in the present case.
3 II (2003) CPJ 127 (NC)
Shushrusha Citizens Co-Op. Hospital & Another Vs. MurlidharEknathMasane
Medical services – professional negligence of hospital and doctor proved – Compensation granted.
4. III (2014) CPJ 528 (NC)
Ritu Gupta Vs. Rajdhani Hospital
Medical negligence – removal of stone from bile duct – surgery conducted – duodenum was perforated – second surgery – mental trauma and financial loss – Deficiency in service - Established - Compensation awarded.
38. Opposite parties contended that after the operation on 09.04.2008, the complainant was discharged on 17.04.2008 in normal condition. She was admitted for head-ache and vomiting on 22.04.2008. For detecting any urinary tract infection, investigation of urine was done and discharged her on 24.04.2008. All the medical reports were handed over to the complainant at the time of her discharge. Again, on 27.04.2008, she was admitted for watery discharge from her vagina. She was put on continuous bladder drainage and the Urologists opinion was obtained. The specialist advised her to undergo cystoscopy but such facilities were not available in O.P.No.1s Hospital. So, the complainant was advised for further treatment from outside hospital. She was discharged on 30.04.2008 morning. Due to financial constraint, she approached Urologist in the Government General Hospital, Puducherry. Non-availability of urologist in Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry made her to get admitted in a private hospital, Clinic Nallam, Puducherry on 30.04.2008.
39. According to the opposite parties when the complainant was treated in the O.P.No.1s Hospital during 07.04.2008 to 30.04.2008, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part.The watery discharge from vagina was detected only on 27.04.2008 and it was not due to the operation conducted by the 2nd opposite party. O.P.No.2 stated that hysterectomy and oviratomy was conducted by a technique and procedure known and recognized by the medical science and contended that there was no negligence on her part.
40. The Sono Scan Report of complainant's abdomen, Ex.C72, dt.13.03.2008 disclosed as her Rt. and Lt. ovaries normal and Final Impression: Myoma Uterus. The Ex.C73, the Histopathology/Cytology Report of Tresor Nursing Home did not mention anything about ovaries. Whereas Ex.R7 – Histopathology/Cytology Report of Tresor Nursing Home disclosed Rt ovary 2 X1.5 cms C.5 homogenous with tiny cyst. Left ovary 2.2 cms c.5 homogenous with a cyst 0.5 cm. Tubes normal also ovary shows falliculor cyst.
41. The deposition of O.P.No.2/RW1 regarding the condition of the ovaries is as follows:
RW1 deposed, I have described that the ovaries were pathological. My statement is proved by Histopathological report of the ovaries. I deny the suggestion that even though the ovaries were perfectly in order an operation has been performed alleging that the ovaries is pathological. It is not correct to state that the reasons for removal of the ovaries are false and unacceptable.
42. The Histopathological Report Ex.R7 revealed that the complainants ovary homogenous with tiny cyst and left ovary homogenous with a cyst 0.5 cm. O.P.No.2/RW1 deposed that the ovaries were pathological. The document Ex.R7 completely disclosed the condition of complainants ovaries at the time of operation that the ovaries were cystic.
43. O.P.No.2/RW1 also deposed that she had conducted laporotomy and found omental adhesions and both ovaries were cystic, fallopian tubes normal, and uterus was bulky. Therefore, total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salphingo ovarotomy was done to relieve the complainant from abdominal pain and to avoid future health problems. If the ovaries were not removed, there was the danger of the ovaries getting malignant.
44. Thus, from Ex.R7 Histopathology Report, chief examination and deposition of 2nd Opposite Party/RW1revealed that the complainants ovaries were cystic. O.P.No.2 had done hysterectomy and removed the cystic ovaries to avoid further health problem and for the welfare of the complainant. The Doctor, 2nd opposite party had done this in good faith as deposed by her. Thus, there is no negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party/RW1 in conducting hysterectomy and removing cystic ovaries and hence there is no substance in the allegation made by the complainant. Hence, such allegations have to be rejected as there is no truth in it.
45. The complainant also alleged that removal of the two ovaries rendered her incapable of giving birth to a child. The opposite parties pointed out that the complainant had already undergone tubectomy ten years before, after the birth of her second child in order to avoid future pregnancy. Moreover, when hysterectomy was done, there is no possibility to conceive and beget a child.
46. The following citations are filed by the opposite parties in support of their case:
1. 2010(2) CTC 461 – Supreme Court
Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others
Complainants husband underwent surgical operation for removal of abdominal tumor and subsequently died on account of polygenic meningitis – Surgical approach adopted by Doctor is incorrect – Ought to have adopted posterior approach and not anterior approach – Medical text and evidence show anterior approach is preferable – Doctors in complicated cases have to take chance even if rate of survival is low – Courts have to be extremely careful to ensure that unnecessarily professionals are not harassed so that they will be able to perform duty without fear – Complainant had not made out a case of negligence –Complaint dismissed.
As Honble Supreme Court in this case made it clear that Doctors in complicated cases have to take chance even if the rate of survival is low. The O.P.No.2 in the present case had performed the surgery by taking into consideration the welfare future health condition of the complainant.
- 2010 (2) CTC – 710 – Madras High Court
The Collector of North Arcot District Vs. K.Mani&Another and
Dr. ParimalaSelvaraj Vs. .K.Mani, 2. The Collector of North Arcot
Defined Medical negligence – True test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment is whether the doctor is guilty of not possessing ordinary skill or not acting with ordinary care at relevant time–
Burden of proof on whom – Initial burden is upon plaintiff to prove that Doctor who performed the operation is negligent – Approach of Appellate Court in drawing inference that Doctor is liable for non-production of medical records – Held erroneous.
In this case, the patient was discharged from the Hospital and taken her in an auto which is about 7 – 8 K.M. – There is a possibility of a woman developing cerebral vein thrombosis – When there is possibility of developing Cerebral Vein Thrombosis – It cannot be said that the death was due to medical negligence.
Findings:
47. Dr. Kalavani, the 2nd opposite party, relied upon the Histopathology Report, Ex.R7 which revealed that both left and right ovaries were affected with tiny cyst at the time of operation hence she felt the necessity to remove the uterus and unhealthy ovaries while removing myoma. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition of the Doctor, we can understand that the ovaries were removed for the welfare of the complainant and there was no other intention.
48. The complainant was operated on 09.04.2008 and discharged her on 17.04.2008 in good condition. But on 22.04.2008, she complained of incessant passing of urine and was admitted again in O.P.No.1's Hospital. There was a gap of 12 days from the operation and the complainants complaint of incessant passing of urine. The complainant was discharged after the operation in good health condition and her abdominal pain had subsided. So, on 22.04.2008, she had approached O.P.No.1s Hospital with the complaint of passing of urine incessantly which is a different complaint. Moreover, RW3, Dr.Vijay Oza has not spelt anything in his deposition that incessant passing of urine was due to the surgery performed by the 2nd opposite party. In his deposition, he deposed that the complainant had incessant passing of urine and he performed surgery on 01.05.2008 and brought her to normal health condition. It is difficult to link the nexus between the operation performed on 09.04.2008 and the fresh complaint made on 22.04.2008 of incessant passing of urine. The complainant had not produced any evidence through an Expert opinion or any Medical Literature to prove the link between the operation performed and the cause of incessant passing of urine. The complainant has not substantiated the incessant passing of urine was due to the surgery performed 12 days before. We are not sure how much care the complainant would have taken after surgery during these 12 days and what was the cause of passing of incessant urine not just after the surgery but after a gap of 12 days. There is no proof on record to prove the connection between the surgery and the present complaint of dripping of urine.
49. Ex.R7, the Histopathology Report, is the vital document to prove whether the 2nd opposite party was justifiable in removing the ovaries of the complainant. This document disclosed that the complainants left and right ovaries were cystic and they were not in good condition. Hence, the complainant is estopped from making such allegations against O.P.No.2 for the removal of unhealthy cystic ovaries.
50. Also, the cause of incessant passing of urine has not been established by the complainant that it is an aftermath of the surgery. Thus, Dr.Kalavani, the 2nd opposite party, has not committed any negligence or deficiency in service while performing the surgery to the complainant. Thus, negligence on part of 2nd opposite party has not been proved by the complainant and the allegation has to be rejected.
51. In the absence of any Expert Opinion, Medical Literature, document or any other evidence, we cannot accept the allegation made by the complainant that the incessant passing of urine stemmed from the surgery performed on 09.04.2008 by the 2nd opposite party.
52. Hence, the complainant's allegation that incessant passing of urine was due to the snapping of her urinary canal by the 2nd opposite party was not proved in any manner. Also, on assumptions and presumptions, we cannot entangle a Doctor with liability, when the allegations had not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Since the complainant had not proved through cogent evidence that dribbling of urine was due to the surgery conducted by the 2nd opposite party, the allegation has to be rejected.
53. On 30.03.2008, when the complainant's health deteriorated due to incessant passing of urine, the opposite parties discharged her on the grounds that she needed further treatment to arrest the passing of urine from some Higher Institutions since such facilities were not available in O.P.No.1s Hospital. Hence, the complainant was admitted in Government General Hospital, Puducherry since she was financially unsound to meet out the medical expenses from any other private hospital. In this connection, the 2nd opposite party had given a letter, Ex.C22 to Dr.Vasudevan, Urologist in G.H., Puducherry requesting to admit the patient Amudha. It is seen that no case sheet or past medical history of the treatment rendered to Amudha was handed over to her. The opposite parties had not produced any evidence to show that the records relating to her medical history had been handed over to her, but, only a mere mention in the counter and during the course of arguments. Moreover CW3 - Dr.Vijay Oza deposed that I have not perused the discharge summary from O.P.No.1's Hospital before performing my operation on 01.05.2008 . Also, CW2, the Administrative Officer of Nallam Clinic had also not expressed anything about the case history of the complainant when she was admitted in their Hospital on 30.04.2008 to 05.05.2008. From the above observations, it is crystal clear that the complainant was not given the case history of her ailment when she was discharged from O.P.No.1's Hospital on 30.04.2008 morning. O.P.No.1s Hospital owes a duty towards the patient to give the full history of the treatment given by them for her future treatment and for further reference. But, the O.P.No.1s Hospital miserably failed to do its duty.
54. We can also observe that when the complainant was admitted on 27.04.2008 with the complaint of incessant passing of urine, the O.P.No.1s Hospital obtained the advice of Dr.Vijay Oza, urologist, who had advised her to undergo cystoscopy since such facilities were not available in O.P.No.1s Hospital. The complainant first approached the Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry on 30.04.2008 and since the Urologist was not available in the said Hospital, she was admitted in Clinic Nallam, Puducherry on the same day. At that particular stage, her health condition deteriorated due to incessant passing of urine for about a week. A patient who had undergone a major surgery about two weeks before and having the complaint of passing of urine continuously would naturally be in a critical stage. We can see that after the surgery on 09.04.2008, the complainant was admitted again in O.P.No.1s Hospital on 22.04.2008 and discharged on 24.04.2008 and again admitted on 27.04.2008 with the complaint of incessant passing of urine. She had approached O.P.No.1s Hospital again and again since the complainant had reposed her faith in the medical services rendered by O.P.No.1s Institution.
55. At this juncture, it is the bounden duty of O.P.No.1s Hospital to render helping hand to the patient who was at its mercy. On 30.04.2008, the complainant was discharged from its Hospital to get admitted in G.H., Puducherry. The complainant was neither provided any ambulance facilities nor any para-medical staff to assist her in case of any emergency during the transit. The O.P.No.1s Hospital left the complainant in the lurch and disowned her without considering the seriousness of her health condition at the time of discharge, which is a serious lapse on its part.
56. Thus, while discharging the complainant from O.P.No.1s Hospital for further treatment in another Higher Institution, the O.P.No.1s Hospital failed to provide the case history of the treatment given to her, but only a small reference letter with four lines, Ex.C22 which is nothing but the introduction of the patient to an Urologist at G.H., Puducherry. Also, not taking into account the critical situation of the complainant on 30.04.2008 morning, discharged her to get admitted in another Higher Institution for further treatment without arranging for an ambulance and any other help that she needed at that critical moment. Thus, it is obvious that there is a dereliction of duty on the part of O.P.No.1s Hospital in rendering medical service to the complainant. Hence, deficiency in service is proved beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the O.P.No.1s Hospital is liable for the lapse. Thus, O.P.No.1s Hospital is squarely liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and sufferings undergone by her.
57. To sum up, we find Dr.Kalavani, 2nd Opposite Party had relied upon Ex.R7, the Histopathology Report, for performing the surgery and discharged the complainant in good condition. She had also performed the surgery after obtaining valid consent from the complainant under Ex.R1. The reason for incessant passing of urine after a gap of 12 days after the performance of surgery, was not proved by the complainant through Expert evidence or through any document. Hence, it is difficult to co-relate the incessant passing of urine with the surgery conducted by the 2nd opposite party. Hence, the 2nd opposite party cannot be held liable for any negligence or deficiency in service.
58. Since there is no deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of 2nd opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for any relief from O.P.No.2.
59. Deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1s Hospital is proved, the complainant is entitled for relief for mental agony and sufferings caused due to lack of proper medical help and service from OP1s Hospital.
60. The complainant had claimed for Rs.20,00,000/- for deficiency in service and for medical negligence, Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and sufferings and Rs.28,405/- towards hospital medical expenses and for costs.
61. For the reasons discussed above, since there is apparent deficiency on the part of O.P.No.1s Hospital, the complainant is entitled to have reasonable and adequate compensation for the lapse committed.
62. In the result, the complaint stands allowed. The 1st Opposite Party Hospital is directed to pay to the complainant
i) a sum of Rs. /- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings.
ii) a sum of Rs.28,405/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Thousand Four-Hundred and Five only) towards medical expenses and
iii) a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten-Thousand only) towards costs.
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2015.
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
LIST OF COMPLAINANTS WITNESSES:
CW1 – Amudha, Complainant,. Proof-Affidavit filed on 10.02.2011 and cross-
examined on 25.11.2011 & 29.12.2011
CW2 – Dr.A.S.Kirankumar, examined on 30.03.2012
CW3 – Dr. Vijay Oza, examined on 26.10.2012
LIST OF COMPLAINANTS EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits C1 to C61 are marked through CW1
Ex.C1 – Prescription byDr.Flora to complainant
Ex.C2 – O.P.D. card issued by O.P.1 to the complainant.
Ex.C3 – Bio-Chemistry Report, dt.22.03.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant.
Ex.C4 – Haematology Report, dt.22.03.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant,
Ex.C5 – Cash Bill for Rs.406, dt.24.03.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant,
Ex.C6 – Discharge-Slip, dt. 25.03.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant,
Ex.C7 – Cash Bill for Rs.1,410/-, dt. 25.03.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant,
Ex.C8 – Cash Bill for Rs. 44/-, dt. 02.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant,
Ex.C9 – Cash Bill for Rs.100/-, dt.05.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant,
Ex.C10- O.P.D. cash bill for Rs.600/-, dt. 08.04.2008 issued by O.P.1 to one
Murugan, Blood donor.
Ex.C11- Cash Bill for Rs.600/-, dt.09.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the Lakshmi Kanth,
blood donor. Ex.C12- Two prescriptions, issued by O.P.1 to the
complainant.
Ex.C13- 3 Cash Bills for Rs.1,324.74, Rs.2071.82 and Rs.2,232, dt. 09.04.2008,
issued by O.P.1 to the complainant.
Ex.C14- Cash bill for Rs.620, dt.09.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant.
Ex.C15- Cash Bill for Rs.300/- dt. 10.04.2008, issued by Tresor Nursing Home,
Puducherry to the complainant.
Ex.C16- In-patient Bill for Rs.9,500/-, dt. 17.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the
Complainant.
Ex.C17- Discharge Slip, dt. 17.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant,
Ex.C18- Xerox copy of Ultrasound Abdomen Report, dt.23.04.2008 with graph,
issued by O.P.1 relating to the complainant.
Ex.C19- Temporary receipt for Rs.1,340/-, dt. 24.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the
Complainant.
Ex.C20- Cash receipt for Rs.690, dt. 29.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the complainant
Ex.C21- Cash receipt for Rs.1,400/-, dt. 30.04.2008, issued by O.P.1 to the
Complainant.
Ex.C22- Referral letter, dt.NIL by O.P.1 to Dr.Vasudevan, Urology-I, G.H.,
Puducherry.
Ex.C23- Test Result, dt. 30.04.2008, issued by Nallam Diagnostic Centre,
Puducherry to the complainant.
Ex.C24- Whole Blood test result, dt.30.04.2008, issued by Nallam Diagnostic Centre,
Puducherry to the complainant.
Ex.C25- Cash Bill for Rs.91/-, dt. 30.04.2008, issued by Clinic Nallam Pharmacy, dt.
30.04.2008 to the complainant.
Ex.C26- Cash receipt for Rs.20,000/-, dt.31.04.2008 (Date wrongly mentioned),
issued to complainant.
Ex.C27- Haematology and serology report, dt. 01.05.2008, issued by Nallam
Diagnostic Centre, Puducherry to the complainant.
Ex.C28- Prescription by Clinic Nallam, Puducherry to complainant.
Ex.C29 -Cash bill for Rs.50, dt. 30.04.2008, issued by Clinic Nallam, Puducherry to
the Complainant.
Ex.C30- Cash Bill for Rs. 71/-, dt.01.05.2008, Clinic Nallam, Puducherry to the
Complainant.
Ex.C31-Cash Bill for Rs. 25/-, dt.01.05.2008, Clinic Nallam, Puducherry to the
Complainant.
Ex.C32-In-Patient Prescription, dt.NIL by Clinic Nallam, Puducherry to the
Complainant.
Ex.C33- Cash Bill for Rs.20/-, dt. 01.05.2008, issued by Clinic Nallam, Puducherry to
the complainant.
Ex.C34- Cash Bill for Rs.130.50, dt. 01.05.2008, issued by Clinic Nallam, Puducherry
to the complainant.
Ex.C35- Cash Bill for Rs. 221.10, dt. 01.05.2008, issued by Tamizh Pharmacy,
Puducherry to the complainant.
Ex.C36- Cash Bill for Rs.879/-, dt. 02.06.2008, issued by Nallam Pharmacy,
Puducherry to the complainant.
Ex.C37- Investigation request, by NallamClinic ,dt. NIL,
Ex.C38- Cash Bill for Rs.56/-, dt. 02.05.2008, issued by Nallam Pharmacy,
Puducherry to complainant.
Ex.C39- Investigation request, dt. 02.05.2008, issued by Nallan Clinic, Puducherry to
Complainant.
Ex.C40- In-Patient Precsription,dt.3.05.2008, issued by Nallam Clinic, Puducherry, to
the complainant.
Ex.C41- In-Patient Prescription, dt.03.05.2008, issued by Clinic Nallam to
Complainant
Ex.C42- Cash bill for Rs.36, dt. 03.05.2008, issued by Clinic NallamPharmay,
Puducherry to complainant
Ex.C43- In-Patient Prescription, dt. 04.05.2008 of Clinic Nallam, Puducherry to
complainant.
Ex.C44 – Cash Bill for Rs.93/-, dt.04.05.2008 issued by Satyam Medicals,
Puducherry to complainant.
Ex.C45 – In-Patient Prescription, dt. 04.05.2008, Clinic Nallam, Puducherry to
complainant.
Ex.C46 – Cash Bill for Rs.36/-, dt.03.05.2008 of Clinic Nallam Pharmacy, Puducherry
issued to complainant.
Ex.C47 – Presciption of Clinic Nallam, Puducherry, dt.04.05.2008 to complainant.
Ex.C48 – Cash Bill for Rs. 32/-, dt. 04.05.2008 of Satyam Medicals, Puducherry to
complainant.
Ex.C49 – Investigation charges for Rs. 655/-, dt.05.05.2008, issued by Nallam
Diagnostic Centre, Puducherry to complainant.
Ex.C50 – Prescription, dt.05.05.2008 issued by Nallam Clinic, Puducherry to
complainant.
Ex.C51 – Cash Bill for Rs. 227/-, dt.05.05.2008, issued by PAPSCO Medicals,
Puducherry to complainant.
Ex.C52 – In-Patient bill, dt. 05.05.2008 for Rs.27,750/-, issued by Clinic Nallam,
Puducherry to complainant.
Ex.C53 – Discharge Summary, 05.05.2008, issued by Clinic Nallam to complainant
Ex.C54 – Cash Bill for Rs.113.50, dt. 10.05.2008, issued by PAPSCO Medicals,
Puducherry to complainant.
Ex.C55 – Discharge Summary, dt. 15.05.2008, issued by URO-CARE to
complainant.
Ex.C56 – Prescription issued by CW3 to the complainant.
Ex.C57 – Cash Bill for Rs. 30/-, dt.15.05.2008, issued by Coastal Agencies Annexe,
Puducherry to Complainant.
Ex.C58 – Cash bill for Rs.29.10, dt. 17.07.2008, issued by Amudha Pharmacy,
Puducherry to complainant.
Ex.C59 – Special Power of Attorney-Deed, dt. 28.09.2008, executed by complainant
to her mother Santha.
Ex.C60 – Copy of legal notice, dt. 10.08.2008 by complainant's lawyer to opposite
parties.
Ex.C61 – Reply notice, dt.blank 08.2008, by opposite parties' lawyer to complainant's
lawyer.
Ex.C62 – Case sheet pertaining to complainant maintained by Clinic Nallam,
Puducherry (20 sheets), marked through CW2
Ex.C63 – Bill for Rs.7,750/-, dt. 05.05.2008, issued by Clinic Nallam to complainant,
marked through CW2.
Ex.C64
To |7 X-ray films relating to the complainant
Ex.C71
Ex.C72 – Report of U-Sonography of Abdomen, Kub& Pelvis of the complainant (five
number), issued by Sono Scan Centre, Puducherry
Ex.C73 – Histopatholoy/Cytology Report, dt.26.03.2008 of complainant, issued by
Tresor Nursing Home, Puducherry.
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESSES:
RW1 – Dr.Kalavani, 2nd Opposite Party, proof affidavit filed on 21.11.2013 and was
cross-examined on 20.03.2014, 03.04.2014 and 17.07.2014.
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS:
Ex.R1 – Consent Form, dt.07.04.2008, signed by complainant, marked through RW1
Ex.R2 – Out-Patient case-sheet of Complainant, issued byO.P.No.1 Hospital, marked
through RW1
Ex.R3 – Typed copy of Ex.R2, marked through RW1.
Ex.R4 – In-Patient Case-sheet in respect of complainant (5 sheets), dt.24.03.2008
maintained by O.P.No.1 marked through RW1.
Ex.R5 –Typed copy of Ex.R4, marked through RW1.
Ex.R6 –Consent Form, dt.24.03.2008 signed by complainant obtained by O.P.No.1,
marked through RW1.
Ex.R7 -In-Patient Case-records in respect of complainant (13 sheets), dt. 07.04.2008
maintained by O.P.No.1 marked through RW1.
Ex.R8 – Typed set of Ex.R7, marked through RW1.
Ex.R9 - In-Patient Case-records in respect of complainant (7 sheets), dt. 22.04.2008
maintained by O.P.No.1 marked through RW1
Ex.R10- Typed set of Ex.R9, marked through PW1
Ex.R11- Consent Form, dt.22.04.2008 signed by complainant obtained by O.P.No.1,
marked through RW1
Ex.R12- Endorsement made by complainant and her mother in Ex.R9, marked
through RW1
Ex.R13- In-Patient Case-records in respect of complainant (12 sheets), dt.
27.04.2008 maintained by O.P.No.1 marked through RW1
Ex.R14- Typed set of Ex.R13, marked through RW1
Ex.R15- Consent Form, dt.27.04.2008 signed by complainant, obtained by O.P.No.1,
marked through RW1
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
