BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for granting compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- against the OP to pay the same for their deficiency in service and caused negligent act against the complainant and due to complications in the kidney of the complainant she died on 24.06.2022, along with interest at 12% p.a., till realization.

2.       The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

It is the case of the complainant that she was admitted to OP hospital for delivery of the baby and on 12.12.2018 she gave birth to female baby at 1.50 am.  She has undergone operation for the said delivery and at that time the baby was weighing 1.805 kgs., and the OP has charged Rs.2,00,000/- as package for delivery and the doctors who were attended the complainant have advised to keep the baby in incubator for 10 days, since the baby was born as premature and having less weight than the normal one as there was no development in the womb of the complainant.  The OP has also charged Rs.1,50,000/- for incubator charges for the baby at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per day and the complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- for delivery and Rs.1,50,000/- for the incubator charges for the baby and in total she has paid Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of discharge to the OP hospital.

3. It is the specific case of the complainant that the blood report of the complainant dated 12.12.2018 it was noticed that “serum creatine” at 2.5 mg/dl and the same was also mentioned in the discharge summary of the complainant dated 17.12.2018, but the doctors were not given  any treatment for the serum creatinine during the time of hospitalization and bulky ovary size even they have not taken any measure steps for the same and even they have not disclosed to the complainant at any point of time and concealed the same willfully and negligently even though they have charged Rs.2,00,000/- as package delivery, which clearly shows the negligence of doctors and there was deficiency of service towards the complainant in giving treatment for her.
4. It is further case of the complainant that during the time of pregnancy one Dr.Arati Ramrao of OP hospital was looking after the complainant throughout the period of pregnancy and many blood tests were conducted. Nowhere the complainant was having the serum creatinine problem at any point of time as per the blood report and ultra sound report was also conducted. As per the above said reports there was no symptoms of increase of serim creatinine was deducted during earlier blood test conducted as stated above by the doctors and the complainant was not having any kind of said disease earlier and even during the time of admission for delivery as per the above said report.  The complainant was keeping good health before admission to the OP hospital.

5. It is further case of the complainant that after six months of discharge from the OP hospital the complainant was diagnosed as increase of serim creatinine at 2.5 and it was gradually increased day by day and even she was taken treatment for dialysis twice in a week regularly for more than 10 months. The doctors have also advised the for kidney transplantation to save the life. The complainant has registered her name for transplantation in the government of Karnataka under Jeeva Sarthakathe Scheme.

6. It is further case of the complainant that she was suffering from the above said disease only due to heavy administration of medicine and due to negligence of doctors who were attended the complainant till the time of delivery. Even though it was deducted as per discharge summary note they have not treated properly and they have not advised the complainant to take treatment for the aforesaid disease and they have not disclosed to the complainant about the disease and they have concealed the above disease willfully and hence it amounts to deficiency of service by the doctors of the OP.  In view of this the complainant suffered pain and agony, mental shock during her life time.  In view of the aforesaid complication in the kidney the complainant died on 24.06.2022.

7. The complainant has also got issued legal notice on 26.10.2021 claiming compensation of Rs.1 crore and it was served on the OP on 29.10.2021. The OP have not paid the amount of compensation for deficiency nor responded to the legal notice.  

8. It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this case the complainant died and her legal representatives i.e., her husband and her daughter brought on record. Hence the complainant prays for allowing the complaint and award of compensation.

9. In response to the notice, OP appears and files version stating that the allegations made in the  complaint are all false, frivolous, concocted totally misconceived and specifically denied.  

10. It is the case of the OP that the complainant has come to their hospital on 14.10.2017 and she was under the treatment of Dr.Arati Ramarao, consultant IVF. She conceived with an IUI (Intra Uterine Insemination). She had regular prenatal and antenatal visits with Dr.Arati on various dates from 14.05.2018 to 07.12.2018.  She was referred to Dr.Teji consultant OBGYN for antenatal follow-up on 21.11.2018 at 35 weeks 5 days of gestation. She was found to have IUGR with Doppler changes.  She was already on antihypertensive medications. Thereafter within five days of her first OPD visit with Dr.Teji on 12.12.2018 she came to emergency department with complaints of high blood pressure 180/120 mm Hg recordings and complaints of nausea.  She was given emergency anti hypertensives and medications for pre-eclampsia for the said complaints. The relevant blood and urine tests were sent. Complainant and her husband were counselled for an emergency LSCS in view of severe pre-eclampsia and taken up for LSCS on 12.12.2018 after receiving the appropriate informed consent.  

11. It is further case of the OP that they in no way over charged or rendered any wrong medical advise to the complainant on the pretext of financial gain or even any other pretext.  As a standard practice the hospital or any other doctors would never assure a patient of recovery or prognosis of the patient. They only recommend various treatment options based on the probability of helping the patient to improve from their medical condition. Every patient at the time of admission is counseled regarding the risks involved in a procedure including the risk of failure of procedure as well as risk of recurrence.  At no point of time, the OP hospital or any doctor assure 100% success for any procedure or treatment undertaken. 

12. It is further case of the OP that the LSCS was uneventful.  A pre term female baby was delivered and handed to the neonatologist. During the surgery on 12.12.2018 an incidental large twisted ovarian cyst was found for which an oophorectomy was done and the specimen was sent for HPE as per protocol. Post-partum the complainant blood pressure remained uncontrolled and hence she was shifted to ICU for further management and BP control. She was monitored and treated by the critical care team as per the applicable protocols.  Her creatinine and urine output were monitored on a daily basis by the critical care consultant and an appropriate treatment was given as per the protocol.  The complainant and her husband were regularly counseled about her condition by the critical care team.  

13. It is further case of the OP that the complainant’s urine output was found to be good (2100 ml) and her creatinine was stabilized on 14.12.2018 and considering the stability in her condition she was shifted to the ward on the same day. With anti hypertensive’s BP was controlled and she was discharged on a stable condition on 17.12.2018 with an advise to followup with nephrologists for management of increased creatinine levels.  For the reasons best known to the complainant she never turned up for any followup and therefore the allegation of negligence is not attributable to the OP.  The allegations made by the complainant the kidney failure due to the negligence of OP hospital or the doctors the same is a figment of the complainant’s imagination.  The OP hospital and its doctors have done nothing against the medical protocols. All the treatments that was rendered to the complainant was done in the same manner as any reasonable and prudent doctor would have done.   The OP have denied that there has been negligence, false assurance or any form of mental harassment meted out to complainant.  The complainant and her husband were duly counseled and given best treatment suitable to her under given circumstances in her best interest and in tune with standard medical practices. Hence the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14. The LR of the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 06 documents.  Affidavit evidence of official of OP has been filed and OP relies on 25 documents.

15. Heard the arguments of advocate for the complainant only.  No oral argument is advanced on behalf of OP.  Perused the written arguments.

16. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

17. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2:  In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

18. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, evidence and documents filed by both the parties.

19. The deceased complainant was admitted to OP hospital for delivery of the baby on 12.12.2018 and she gave birth to a female baby at 1.15 am., having undergone operation for the said delivery.  Since the baby was having lessor weight of 1.805 kg., and the baby was put in an incubator for 10 days and the complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- as package for delivery and Rs.1,50,000/- for the incubator charges for the baby at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per day.  She has totally paid Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of discharge from the OP hospital.

20. It is the specific case of the complainant that as per the blood report dated 12.12.2018 it was noticed that cerium creatinine at 2.5 mg/DL and the same was also mentioned in the discharge summary dated 17.12.2018 but the doctors have not given any treatment for the cerium creatinine during the time of hospitalization and they have not taken any steps or measures for the same and they have not disclosed the same to the complainant at any point of time and concealed the same willfully and negligently even though they have charged Rs.2,00,000/- as package delivery.  

21. It is further grievance of the complainant that one Dr.Arati Ramarao of the OP hospital was looking after her throughout period of her pregnancy and many blood tests were conducted.  Nowhere she was having the cerium creatinine problem at any point of time as per the blood reports and ultra sound reports and also blood reports received at Magna Nursing Home, Whitefield, Bangalore.  There was no symptoms of increase of cerium creatinine were detected during earlier blood tests and the complainant was not having any kind of said disease even earlier and during the time of admission for delivery.   The complainant was keeping good health before admission to hospital.

22. It is further grievance of the complainant that after discharge from the OP hospital she was diagnosed as increase of cerium creatinine of 2.5 and it was gradually increased day by day and even she was taking treatment of dialysis twice in a week regularly for more than 10 months and the doctors have advised for kidney transplantation to save the life and she was registered her name for transplantation in the Government of Karnataka under Jeeva Sarthaka Scheme.  It is specific case of the complainant that she was suffering from the above said disease only due to heavy administration of medicine and due to negligence of the doctor who were attended her till the time of delivery and even though it was detected as per the discharge summary note they have not treated properly and they have not advised to take treatment for the above said disease and they have not disclosed the same to the complainant and they have concealed the same willfully and it amounts to deficiency of service.  Due to the deficiency of service and negligence of the doctors of the OP she has to suffer for the entire life.

23. It is pertinent to note hear that during the pendency of the case and after closure of the complainant’s evidence the complainant died and her LR’s brought on record.  After death of the complainant her one of the LR her husband has further led evidence.

24. In support of their contention the complainants have relied on six documents.  Ex.P1 is the discharge summary and Ex.P2 is the inpatient bill and Ex.P3 is the death certificate of the diseased complainant and copy of the aadhar card of the LRs of the complainant and copy of three books issued by the Aster CMI hospital.

25. On the other hand the contention taken by the OP is that the complaint itself is vexatious, false.  The deceased was presented to their hospital on 14.10.2017 and she was under the treatment of Dr.Arati Ramarao consultant IVF.  The complainant conceived with an IUI. She had regular pre-natal and antenatal visits with Dr.Arati on various dates from 14.05.2018 to 07.12.2018.  Again she was referred to Dr.Teji, (consultant OBGYN) for antenatal follow up on 21.11.2018 at 25 weeks five days of gestation.

26. It is further case of the OP that the complainant was found to have IUGR with Doppler changes. She was already on an anti-hypertensive medications.  Thereafter within five days of her first OPD visit with Dr.Teji on 12.12.2018 she came to emergency departments with complaints of high blood pressure of 180/120 mm Hg recordings and complaints of Nausea.  She was gave an emergency anti hypertensive and medications for preeclampsia for the said complaints.  The complainant and her husband were counseled for an emergency LSCS.  In view of severe pre-eclampsia and taken for LSCS on 12.12.2018 after receiving appropriate informed consent from the complainant and her husband.

27. The OP have further stated that their hospital has in no way over charged or rendered any wrong medical advise to the complainant on the pretext of financial gain or even any other pretext.  They never assured the patient of recovery or prognosis of the patient.  They only recommended the various treatment options based on the probability of helping the patient to improve their medical condition.
28. The LSCS was uneventful, a pre-term female baby was delivered by the complainant and handed over to neonatologist.  During the surgery on 12.12.2018 an incidental large twisted ovarian cyst was found for which an oophorectomy was done. And specimen was sent for HPE as per protocol. The deceased was having high blood pressure at that time and it was uncontrolled. Hence she was shifted to ICU for further management and BP control.  She was monitored and treated by the critical care team. Her creatinine and urine output were monitored on a daily basis by the critical care consultant and an appropriate treatment was given as per the protocol. The deceased complainant and her husband were regularly counseled about the condition of the deceased complainant by the critical care team. The deceased was shifted to ward on 14.12.2018 after her creatinine were stabilized. They have given antihypertensive BP was controlled and the deceased was discharged in a stable condition on 17.12.2018 with an advise to follow up with nephrologist for management of increased creatinine levels.  After discharge from the OP hospital the deceased complainant never turned up for any follow up and therefore the allegation of negligence is not attributable to the OP.  They have specifically denied that the kidney failure was due to the negligence of the doctors of the OP hospital. This OP hospital doctors have done nothing against the medical protocols. All the treatment that was rendered to the complainant was done in the same manner as any reasonable and prudent doctor would have done.

29. In support of their contention the authorized person from the OP hospital namely Karthikeyan working as an executive in the OP hospital has filed his affidavit evidence and they have produced 24 documents.

30. On perusal of the entire documents it is clear from the Ex.P1 the discharge summary issued by the OP hospital on 17.12.2018 that the OP hospital has advised the deceased complainant to consult nephrologist for raised cerium creatinine and persistent anemia. It is also clear from the Ex.P1 that the deceased was discharged in a healthy condition by giving all the advise.

31. After discharge from the OP hospital the deceased never turned up to the OP hospital for further treatment. The complainant has also produced the reports from one Magna Nursing and maternity home in the year September 2015.  All these reports are prior to the admission and delivery of the deceased complainant to the OP hospital.

32. The main grievance of the complainant is that the deceased complainant has got kidney problem due to the heavy medicine administered by the OP hospital doctors during her pregnancy and at the time of delivery.  The complainant has produced the Ex.P6 i.e., the dialysis patient’s hand book issued by the Aster CMI hospital from 01.01.2021 till 2.06.2022.  It is also clear from the medical records produced by complainant and also OP.  After discharge from the OP hospital the deceased complainant never turned up and she never approached the OP hospital for any treatment till her death on 24.06.2022. She was taken treatment at Aster CMI hospital till her death. The complainant has also not at all produced any documents except the dialysis report for having taken treatment for the creatinine problem.  Even though the OP hospital doctors have advised the deceased complainant at the time of discharge to consult nephrologist for raised cerium creatinine and also for persistent anemia.  She has not at all contacted or taken treatment from any nephrologist till she undergo for dialysis from 01.01.2021.  It is also clear from the Ex.P1 the discharge summary and Ex.R1 to R25, the deceased was taken treatment from 12.12.2018 till 17.12.2018.  The condition of the deceased was healthy and good at the time of discharge and hence the OP hospital have discharged the deceased complainant with proper advise.

33. The complainant would have approached the OP hospital for the complaint of her cerium creatinine and also for persistent anemia.  When she has not at all approached the OP hospital after discharge in the year 2018 the question of negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP hospital for her creatinine problems does not arise. The deceased complainant has never taken any treatment after her discharge from the OP hospital. Apart from the documentary evidence placed before this Commission the complainant have not at all adduced any expert doctor evidence in order to show that the deceased got the problems of raised cerium creatinine due to the heavy medicine given to her at the time of delivery during her stay in the OP hospital from 12.12.2018 to 17.12.2018.  As the condition of the deceased complainant was very serious she was admitted to the hospital with uncontrolled BP with hypothyroidism and twisted large left ovarian cyst. Taking into consideration the serious condition of the deceased complainant she was taken for emergency LSCS.  Her creatinine level and BP was controlled by administering medicines by keeping her in critical care unit of the OP hospital.

34. When the OP hospital doctors have advised the deceased to consult nephrologist for her raised cerium creatinine it is the duty of the complainant to take proper treatment from the nephrologist. Instead of taking treatment the complainant has gone to Aster CMI hospital when the kidney was failed and she was put on dialysis.  During her dialysis period the complainant has filed this complaint seeking the relief to direct the OP hospital for paying compensation for their negligence and deficiency of service.  When the complainant has not at all taken any treatment for her kidney problems from the OP hospital the question of deficiency of service and negligence does not arise. Under these circumstances the complainants have failed to establish the deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OP hospital. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief.   Hence we answer point No.1 and 2 in the negative.

35. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 10^th day of JULY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;