Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/109/2017

P.Sathyanthan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Ayanavaram Family Welfare centre Rep by its Hospital head - Opp.Party(s)

Lakshmi rathan

19 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on : 30.06.2017

                                                               Order pronounced on:  19.03.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE 19^th  DAY OF MARCH  2020

 

C.C.NO.109/2017

 

1.P.Sathyanathan,

S/o. B.Palani,

61/1, Muthammal Koil Street,

Ayanavaram,

Chennai – 600 023.

 

2. Mrs. Parameswari (Alias) Eswari,

W/o P.Sathyanathan,

61/1, Muthammal Koil Street,

Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainants

 ..Vs..

1.The Ayanavaram Family Welfare Centre,

Rep. by its Hospital Head,

Ayanavaram Hospital,

Corporation of Chennai,

United India Nagar,

Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

 

2.Dr.Yasmin,

Ayanavaram Family Welfare Centre,

Ayanavaram Hospital,

Corporation of Chennai,

United India Nagar,

Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainants                         : R.Lakshmi Ratan, Nivedita Lakshmi

                                                                       Ratan, Akila Srinivasan, V.Paramveer

 

Counsel for  1^st  opposite party                   : Ex-parte (28.09.2017)

 

Counsel for  2^nd  opposite party                   : M/s.S.L.Sudarsanam, C.P.Hemkumar

 

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd complainant was pregnant with their first child and delivered a baby boy on 01.07.2015 and died within 8 days of birth due to Spina Bifida. The 1^st complainant in a view to provide the 2^nd complainant a quality medical care, decided to consult the 1^st opposite party’s Health Centre. The healthcare provider is managed by the State Government. The 1^st opposite party is obligated to provide the highest standard of healthcare to all their patients at a reasonable cost. The 2^nd opposite party had informed the complainants that monthly check ups were necessary to track the progress of the mother and the baby.  The 2^nd opposite party had informed the complainants that the baby would be born on 24.06.2015. The  1^st complainant brought the 2^nd complainant to the 2^nd opposite party on 24.06.2015. The 2^nd opposite party conducted an examination on the 2^nd complainant and noted that her health and that of the foetus were fine. The 1^st complainant brought the 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite party on 25.06.2015, 26.06.2015 and  27.06.2015. When 2^nd complainant reported having stray pains. On 29.06.2015 the 2^nd opposite party ordered for an ultrasound to be taken. To the shock and agony of the  complainants ultrasound report was abnormal and the foetus had open spina bifida. The complainants rushed back to the 1^st opposite party on 30.06.2015. It was only at this point of time that the 2^nd opposite party actually noted the anomaly in the health of the foetus and immediately referred the 2^nd complainant to another doctor in a bigger state run hospital viz., Egmore Maternity Centre. The 2^nd complainant gave birth to a boy baby on 01.07.2015 at 11.05 p.m and the baby had to be taken to the NICU. As anticipated by the doctors, the baby passed away 8 days after its birth. The complainants had trusted the 1^st opposite party and its doctors to provide quality medical care during the course of the pregnancy of the 2^nd complainant. The 1^st opposite party was  negligent and have not adhered to the reasonable standard of care which is to be provided by every doctor and health care centre. The 1^st complainant had issued a legal notice to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. There was no reply from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.  

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

           The complaint is not maintainable under law and it is liable to be dismissed in limini. There is no privity between the complainants and this opposite party.This opposite party has not received any consideration from the complainants and therefore the above Consumer complaint is not maintainable in law and it is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service rendered by opposite   

               parties  covered under  Consumer Protection Act?

         

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

4. POINT NO :1 

The 1^st & 2^nd complainants  are husband and wife. The 2^nd complainant delivered a male baby on 01.07.2015 and the case of the complainants is that  the complainants  baby died within  eight days of birth due to Spina Bifidia. The complainants and their family members were saddened by the loss of the child. They have trusted the opposite parties for their treatment but the opposite parties have not provided quality medical care during the course of pregnancy of the 2^nd opposite party and failed to adhere reasonable care and disaster could have been avoided during the pregnancy period itself. Open  Spina Bifidia could have easily been detected during second trimester of pregnancy but opposite parties  were negligent in not advising the complainants to take requisite tests to determine the same.  Hence the complaint.

05. One Dr.Revathy Gunasekaran who is a private doctor was the consultant for the 2^nd complainant as per the records submitted by the complainant.  Ex.A1 is the Ultrasound  report of the 2^nd complainant referred by the said Dr.Revathy Gunasekaran. Then she attended the 1^st opposite party hospital as outpatient for some time which is clear from Ex.A2 to Ex.A4.  Again under Ex.A5 dated 28.02.2015 obstetric scan was taken from Premier Health Centre which was referred by Dr.RevathyGunasekaran. The 2^nd complainant’s  approach to the  1^st opposite party hospital as an outpatient from March 2015 to June 2015 is noticed from Ex.A6 to Ex.A15.  Ex.A16 is the  Trimester Scan Report from Quality Scans. From Ex.A17  it is understood that the 2^nd complainant had taken treatment again as an outpatient  of the 1^st opposite party hospital. Ex.A18 is the admission of 2^nd complainant at Egmore Maternity Centre, Labour Ward.  Ex.A19  & Ex.A20 are the birth and death certificates of the male child  born to the 2^nd complainant  dated 01.07.2015 & 08.07.2015 respectively.  Ex.A21 is the copy of the notice issued by the complainant to both the opposite parties.

             06. The 2^nd complainant alleges that whenever she went for check-up at 1^st opposite party’s  hospital,   the 2^nd opposite party  had tested her and reported that the Foetus was normal as seen in Ex.A6 to Ex.A15.  Thereafter  noticing the report in Ex.A16 only, the 2^nd opposite party had advised the 2^nd complainant to go to Egmore maternity centre. Report given at Egmore Maternity Hospital in Ex.A18 reveals that 2^nd complainant left the hospital with the new born  baby soon after delivery against medical advice.

              07. 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte.  The 2^nd opposite party  would contend that she had not received any consideration.  Medical records do vary with her name creating a suspicion  about the identity of the patient.  The 2^nd complainant got discharged with her baby from neonatal care unit against the medical advice on 03.07.2015 whereas the baby was born on 01.07.2015 at Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology at 11.05 p.m and the baby died on 08.07.2015 at her residence. The 2^nd complainant was checked by the 2^nd opposite party only on 29.06.2015 for the first time with Ultra Sound Report and immediately referred to higher hospital.  The 2^nd opposite party was not in the hospital on the alleged dates of Check-up. Hence 2^nd opposite party is not responsible for the alleged negligent act and deficiency in service and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

            08. Ex.A1 and Ex.A5 are the scan reports dated 16.01.2015 and 28.02.2015 from Premier Health Centre, and the test were recommended by one Dr.Revathy Gunsekaran, a private doctor engaged by the 2^nd complainant till  22 weeks of pregnancy. In between the dates i.e. on 28.01.2015 and on 27.02.2015 as per Ex.A2  & Ex.A4 the 2^nd complainant was treated in 1^st opposite party’s hospital as an out- patient perhaps for utilising the tests free of cost. The scan reports recommended by the private doctor reveals the name of the 2^nd complainant as Mrs. Eswari but the name of the 2^nd opposite party is given as Parameswari in 1^st opposite party’s hospital and she continued to maintain the name as such in the 1^st opposite party’s hospital. This status itself makes clear that the 2^nd complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party’s hospital only for the tests available there with free of cost by representing herself in a different name i.e. with her full name. It is also made clear from Ex.A6 to Ex.A15 that the 2^nd complainant was treated for the tests by the 1^st opposite party’s hospital at free of cost. Ex.A16 dated 29.06.2015 is 2/3 Trimester Scan Report  and as per records the patient was referred by the Corporation Hospital and the report indicates  the seriousness of the defect of open Spinabifidia  for the first time.

            09. Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 discloses the leave availed by the 2^nd opposite party and the leave confirmation  was from 09.02.2015 to 26.03.2015. Earlier Ultra Sound and the scan of the 2^nd complainant   was reported in the month of January and February  2015.  Therefore the contention of the second opposite party that she had only seen the last scan report dated 29.06.2015 after joining  duty and referred the 2^nd complainant immediately to higher centre is to be accepted as true. Based on that, the 2^nd complainant  was admitted in IOG, II Unit on 30.06.2015 and delivered a male baby on 01.07.2015 and  she got herself discharged on 03.07.2015 against medical advice as per records. As seen from the death certificate produced in Ex.A20 a male child born to the 2^nd complainant died on 08.07.2015 at the residence of the second complainant. Neither a medical report nor a discharge summary is filed by the complainant to prove that the baby died due to Spina Bifida especially when it is argued on the side complainant as it is a treatable one.  The 2^nd complainant left the hospital against medical advice on 03.07.2015 and is not treated by opposite parties in between the days. The complainants have stated that the opposite parties have not cared to refer to scan but per contra complainants have filed the scan report dated  29.06.2015 with the reference from the opposite party Hospital. The complainants allegation of non-reply to the notice sent by the complainant to opposite parties is not supported by any acknowledgement. From the record produced by both the parties and on noticing the factual situations we could find no deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties.

          10.  Apart from all these, nowhere it is stated by the complainants that they made payment either to opposite party’s hospital or to 2^nd opposite party. It is an admitted fact that no payment was made to opposite parties and no consideration is passed. Service rendered free of charge by a Medical practitioner attached to the hospital/Nursing home where such services are rendered free of charge to everybody would not be service as defined in section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Here in this case no token amount is also paid by the Complaints to the opposite parties. In view of these facts and also as discussed above the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

11. POINT NO.2:

            In view of the elaborate discussions held in point No.1 & 2 the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is dismissed .No costs.

            In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 19^th  day of March 2020.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 16.01.2015                   First Ultraound report of the 2^nd complainant

Ex.A2 dated 28.01.2015          Registration of 2^nd complainant as an outpatient with the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 29.01.2015          Foetus and mother (viz.2^nd complainant) health status check-up report issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

Ex.A4 dated 27.02.2015          22^nd week foetus and mother (viz. 2^nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

Ex.A5 dated 28.02.2015          2^nd Ultrasound report of the 2^nd complainant issued by Premier Health Centre. Ayanavaram.

Ex.A6 dated 24.03.2015          26^th week foeotus and mother (viz. 2^nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

Ex.A7 dated 23.04.2015          30^th week foetus and mother (viz. 2^nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite partties

Ex.A8 dated 25.05.2015          34^th week foetus and mother (viz. 2^nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

Ex.A9 dated 08.06.2015          36^th week foetus and mother (viz. 2^nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

Ex.A10 dated 16.06.2015        37^th week foetus and mother (viz. 2^nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

Ex.A11 dated 24.06.2015        38^th week foetus and mother (viz. 2^nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

Ex.A12 dated 25.06.2015        Foetus and mother (viz 2^nd complainant) status check up report issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

Ex.A13 dated 26.06.2015        Foetus and mother (viz 2^nd complainant) status check up report issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

Ex.A14 dated 27.06.2015        Foetus and mother (viz 2^nd complainant) status check up report issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

Ex.A15 dated 29.06.2015        Foetus and mother (viz 2^nd complainant) status check up report issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

Ex.A16 dated 29.06.2015        Ultrasound Scan report issued by quality Scans along with Receipt.

Ex.A17 dated 30.06.2015        Report given by the 2^nd opposite party referring the 2^nd complainant to Maternity Hospital. Egmore.

Ex.A18 dated 30.06.2015        Record showing admission of the 2^nd complainant at labour ward for delivery and further details  at Egmore Maternity Centre.

Ex.A19 dated 01.07.2015        Copy of Birth certificate of deceased baby.

Ex.A20 dated 08.07.2015        Copy of Death Certificate of deceased baby.

Ex.A21 dated 25.07.2016        Copy of Legal Notice issued by the counsel of the complainants to the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite parties.      

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated 08.01.2015          Leave Letter by the 2^nd opposite party along with Leave Sanctioned approval

         

 

Ex.B2 dated 09.02.2015          Service Register Extract of 2^nd opposite party recording the leave from 09.02.2015 to 25.03.2015 and joining date 26.03.2015

 

Ex.B3 dated 09.02.2015          Attendance Register for the month of February  and March 2015 of 2^nd opposite party.

 

Ex.B4 dated 02.07.2018          Reply given by public Information Officer under RTI enclosing details and attachments

 

Ex.B5 dated 02.07.2018          List of Health Post/UPHC (Urban Primary Health Centre) under the jurisdiction of Ayanavaram EOC.

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT