Date of filing:23.03.2015
Date of order:27.10.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
THURSDAY THE 27THvDAY OF OCTOBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINANT NO. 12/2015
Mrs. Revathi,
W/o. D. Jayakumar,
No. 217, Vivekanandar Street,
BelliappaNagar,Walajah Post,
WalajahTaluk,
Vellore District. ...Complainant
-Vs-
1. Mrs. Fathima Hospital,
Rep.by its Chief Doctor,
2. Dr. Mrs. Wahitha Raja,
Both are Running Hospital at
No. 29/1, Bharathidasan Street,
Vellore Main Road, Arcot & Taluk,
Vellore District. ...Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant :Thiru. M. Senthilkumar
Counsel for opposite parties -1 & 2 : A.A.V. Partners
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.19,75,000/- towards monetary loss, physical sufferings and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant got pregnant and she has continued to take treatment for the same in the opposite party’s hospital. She delivered a baby on 06.08.2013 bycaesarean section and was discharged from the hospital on 10.08.2013. But she was suffering with severe pain in her lowerabdomen continuously.So, she again approached the second opposite party and the opposite party advised to take scan at “NAAGA’S Diagnostic Point @ Ranipet. On 24.02.2014, she was informed by the Mr. Deepak who is running the scan centre that there was no problems found in the report. The second opposite party gave medicines for the relief of the pain. After taking the medicines the problem was not solved. Again, she has approached the second opposite party. This time the opposite party referred to Suriyaa Scan Centre Arcot, where Dr. Jaiganesh scanned and gave a report that there was Serve probe tenderness in the right iliac fossa with extensive inflammatory changes in the mesenteric fat and few discrete subcentimetericlymph nodes of size 5-7 mm that soon after the cesarean the second opposite party had stitched the stomachof the complainant by keeping padwith cotton rolls inserted in the stomach and only because of that the complainantsuffered severe pain and he advised this complainant to take treatment in a good hospital to remove the cotton pads with rolls in her stomach. Immediately she was rushed to Ramachandra Hospital Porur, Chennai and she was admitted in the hospital for treatment to remove the abdomen pad. The surgery was done by one Senior Surgeon Dr. Ramaya and the complainant incurred Rs.2 lakhs for the above said operations. Further she was also informed by the Senior Doctor that she could not get pregnant hereafter, because of the stagnation of pad and cotton waste in her stomach for more than 6 months. Further she was advised not to do hard work, and so she resigned her job for which she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The complainant suffered a lot because of the lethargic attitude of the opposite party by giving wrong treatment to this complainant. She had lost her health which lead into loss of her job and that she could not conceive again. The complainant issued a legal notice on 08.05.2014calling upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,75,000/- as compensation. The opposite parties gave reply on 10.07.2014 with false averments. Since, the opposite party failed to do proper service to this complainant. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So, the opposite parties are bound to pay compensation. Hence, this complaint.
2. The written version of opposite parties are as follows:
The opposite party denied all the averments and allegations of the complainant. The complainant begot a male child on 06.08.2013 by cesareanoperation and after due check up, she was discharged from the opposite party’s hospital on 10.08.2013 is correct. But all other allegations are denied. She suffered pain in the lower abdomenand for which she had approached the opposite parties and on the instruction the complainant doing scan at diagnostic point at Ranipet. One Dr. Deepak gave a report after scanning that thestomach is in normal stage. After seeing the report theopposite parties advised the complainant and send her back all are denied. The opposite party simply reproduced the complainant of the complaint and merely said that all are denied.There is no specific denial in the written version. On going through the Ex.A3, we find that there is an abnormal ‘severe problem tenderness in the right iliac fossa with extensive inflammatory changes in the mesenteric fat and few discrete Subcentimeteric Lymph nodes of size 5-7 mm. Appendix could not be visualized separately’ which was referred in the medical science as “Retained surgical bodies (RSP) Typically the RSP are surgical sponges and instrument located in the abdomen, retroperitoneum and patient. Accordingly to the medical literature the RSP are any foreign bodies left inside the patient after a operation and in general further process is necessary consequences of foreign bodies after surgery may manifest in different forms immediately after the operation, months or even years after the surgery. The retained bodies can be present as a mass usually in the abdominal cavity and are diagnosed during a routine radiology examination if the patient complain in the period after the operation of pain, frequent injection and a palpable mass, this would suggest the presence to retained surgical bodies.Hence, prayed this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.
3. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. Proof affidavit of first opposite party and second party filed. Ex.B1 series marked. Written argument of both sides filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard.
4. The points that of arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief complainant is entitled to?
5. Point Nos.1 & 2:
In the present case, the opposite parties should have done CT Scan to find out the cause of the pain. But the opposite party did not choose to do so. Further the discharge summaryof the Ramachandra Hospital which has marked as Ex.A4 which is clearly reveals that the removal of abdominal pad. In view of the medical literature the RSP cases may lead to life threatening for the patient and requiringurgent treatment with clinical restitution. In the present case, rightly the complainant approached the Ramachandra hospital and saved her life. Further during the arguments the counsel for the opposite partyraisedthe defence that there is no expert evidence, for which we have relied uponthe discharge summary of Ramachandra hospital and in our opinion is the present case, an expert need not examine. In this case because the things speaks for itself “Res Ipas loquitor”. Hence, we find that there is a negligence on the part of the opposite party, while performing the cesarean surgery on the complainant.Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
6. POINT NO.3:
As we have decided in Point Nos. and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Hence, this Point No. 3 is also answered.
7. The result this complaint is partly allowed. The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27thOctober 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 - Copies of entries medical records of complainant for treatment
taken at first opposite party’s Hospital
Ex.A2-24.02.2014 - Copy of Scan Report given by the second opposite party
Naagaas diagnostic point
Ex.A3-18.04.2014 - Copy of ultra Sonagraph Report taken by Suryaa Scans
Ex.A4 - Copy of cash Foil receipts and discharge summary given by
Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai
Ex.A5- 08.05.2014 - Copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel
Ex.A6-10.07.2014 - Copy of Reply Notice issued onbehalf of the second opposite
party
Ex.A7 - Photos of the complainant with C.D
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1Series- 05.08.2013 - Medical records.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
