View 10758 Cases Against Hospital
P.Sathyanthan filed a consumer case on 19 Mar 2020 against The Ayanavaram Family Welfare centre Rep by its Hospital head in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/109/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Aug 2020.
Complaint presented on : 30.06.2017
Order pronounced on: 19.03.2020
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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 19th 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 1st opposite party : Ex-parte (28.09.2017)
Counsel for 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st complainant in a view to provide the 2nd complainant a quality medical care, decided to consult the 1st opposite party’s Health Centre. The healthcare provider is managed by the State Government. The 1st opposite party is obligated to provide the highest standard of healthcare to all their patients at a reasonable cost. The 2nd opposite party had informed the complainants that monthly check ups were necessary to track the progress of the mother and the baby. The 2nd opposite party had informed the complainants that the baby would be born on 24.06.2015. The 1st complainant brought the 2nd complainant to the 2nd opposite party on 24.06.2015. The 2nd opposite party conducted an examination on the 2nd complainant and noted that her health and that of the foetus were fine. The 1st complainant brought the 2nd complainant to the 1st opposite party on 25.06.2015, 26.06.2015 and 27.06.2015. When 2nd complainant reported having stray pains. On 29.06.2015 the 2nd 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 1st opposite party on 30.06.2015. It was only at this point of time that the 2nd opposite party actually noted the anomaly in the health of the foetus and immediately referred the 2nd complainant to another doctor in a bigger state run hospital viz., Egmore Maternity Centre. The 2nd 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 1st opposite party and its doctors to provide quality medical care during the course of the pregnancy of the 2nd complainant. The 1st 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 1st complainant had issued a legal notice to the 1st & 2nd opposite parties. There was no reply from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 2nd 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 1st & 2nd complainants are husband and wife. The 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd complainant as per the records submitted by the complainant. Ex.A1 is the Ultrasound report of the 2nd complainant referred by the said Dr.Revathy Gunasekaran. Then she attended the 1st 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 2nd complainant’s approach to the 1st 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 2nd complainant had taken treatment again as an outpatient of the 1st opposite party hospital. Ex.A18 is the admission of 2nd complainant at Egmore Maternity Centre, Labour Ward. Ex.A19 & Ex.A20 are the birth and death certificates of the male child born to the 2nd 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 2nd complainant alleges that whenever she went for check-up at 1st opposite party’s hospital, the 2nd 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 2nd opposite party had advised the 2nd complainant to go to Egmore maternity centre. Report given at Egmore Maternity Hospital in Ex.A18 reveals that 2nd complainant left the hospital with the new born baby soon after delivery against medical advice.
07. 1st opposite party was set ex-parte. The 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd complainant was checked by the 2nd opposite party only on 29.06.2015 for the first time with Ultra Sound Report and immediately referred to higher hospital. The 2nd opposite party was not in the hospital on the alleged dates of Check-up. Hence 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd complainant was treated in 1st 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 2nd complainant as Mrs. Eswari but the name of the 2nd opposite party is given as Parameswari in 1st opposite party’s hospital and she continued to maintain the name as such in the 1st opposite party’s hospital. This status itself makes clear that the 2nd complainant had approached the 1st 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 2nd complainant was treated for the tests by the 1st 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 2nd opposite party and the leave confirmation was from 09.02.2015 to 26.03.2015. Earlier Ultra Sound and the scan of the 2nd 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 2nd complainant immediately to higher centre is to be accepted as true. Based on that, the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 19th 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 2nd complainant
Ex.A2 dated 28.01.2015 Registration of 2nd complainant as an outpatient with the 1st opposite party
Ex.A3 dated 29.01.2015 Foetus and mother (viz.2nd complainant) health status check-up report issued by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
Ex.A4 dated 27.02.2015 22nd week foetus and mother (viz. 2nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
Ex.A5 dated 28.02.2015 2nd Ultrasound report of the 2nd complainant issued by Premier Health Centre. Ayanavaram.
Ex.A6 dated 24.03.2015 26th week foeotus and mother (viz. 2nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1st & 2nd opposite parties
Ex.A7 dated 23.04.2015 30th week foetus and mother (viz. 2nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1st & 2nd opposite partties
Ex.A8 dated 25.05.2015 34th week foetus and mother (viz. 2nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1st & 2nd opposite parties
Ex.A9 dated 08.06.2015 36th week foetus and mother (viz. 2nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1st & 2nd opposite parties
Ex.A10 dated 16.06.2015 37th week foetus and mother (viz. 2nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1st & 2nd opposite parties
Ex.A11 dated 24.06.2015 38th week foetus and mother (viz. 2nd complainant) status check-up report issued by the 1st & 2nd opposite parties
Ex.A12 dated 25.06.2015 Foetus and mother (viz 2nd complainant) status check up report issued by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
Ex.A13 dated 26.06.2015 Foetus and mother (viz 2nd complainant) status check up report issued by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
Ex.A14 dated 27.06.2015 Foetus and mother (viz 2nd complainant) status check up report issued by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
Ex.A15 dated 29.06.2015 Foetus and mother (viz 2nd complainant) status check up report issued by the 1st and 2nd 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 2nd opposite party referring the 2nd complainant to Maternity Hospital. Egmore.
Ex.A18 dated 30.06.2015 Record showing admission of the 2nd 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 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite parties.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 dated 08.01.2015 Leave Letter by the 2nd opposite party along with Leave Sanctioned approval
Ex.B2 dated 09.02.2015 Service Register Extract of 2nd 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 2nd 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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.