D.O.F:28/04/2017
D.O.O:19/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.87/2017
Dated this, the 19th day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Lijitha aged 27 yrs,
W/o Santhosh.P.P
Kavvanchira House, P.O Balla,
Kanhagad, Kasaragod. Dt : Complainant
(Adv: P. Latheesh)
And
1. The manager,
Sunrise Hospital,
Ramanagar Road, P.O Ajanur,
Kanhangad, Kasaragod District,
PIN – 671531.
2. Dr. Raghavendra Prasad,
Sunrise Hospital,
Ramnagar Road, P.O Ajanur,
Kanhangad, Kasaragod District – 671531. : Opposite Party No: 1&2
(Adv: Mahesh.M)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The facts of the case is that the complainant was suffering from bleeding after four months of pregnancy for which she consulted opposite Party No:2 on 09/12/2016. The Opposite Party No:2 advised that if bleeding continuous it will affect the child in the womb and advised to abort the pregnancy. On 10/10/2016 Opposite Party No:2 conducted MTP for the complainant. From Opposite Party No:1 hospital the complainant was discharged on 13/10/2016 and advised to take bed rest. After one week it started bleeding from abdominal wound when contacted Opposite party No:2 prescribed tablets but not cured. It continued then complainant met Opposite Party No:2 and it is advised that bleeding is due to the physical nature and not to take serious. After two weeks bleeding continued and puss from the abdominal wound came out on scanning nothing is found.
On 03/01/2017 complainant went to Father Mullers Hospital Mangalore for consultation and scanning, it was noted that bleeding was due to infection on the abdominal wound due to presence of foreign body. The complainant undergone another surgery on same abdominal part and recovered from the disease.
Further submits that Opposite Party No:2 has irresponsibly and negligently conducted surgery due to the presence of foreign body there was infection and complainant sustained huge loss, severe pain and mental agony, for which complainant claims Rs. 5 lakh as compensation and cost of litigation.
For Opposite Party No:1 and 2 Adv. Mahesh filed vakalath and version opposite parties denies the allegations and stated that complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on treatment of complainant. The complainant was a third gravid a with history of previous caesarean section and arachnoid cyst of brain and she came up for antenatal consultation. She had the complaint of threatened and abortion and the same was managed conservatively. The complainant came to the opposite parties hospital with complaint of recurrent spotting, per vagina and she was not willing to continue pregnancy with conservative management and voluntarily decided to termination of pregnancy also for sterilization since she was not desirous of having another child as well. On her request opposite party advised Hysterotomy and post portion sterlisation and surgery conducted. Opposite Party No:2 conducted surgery with necessary pre-operative medical consultation. Opposite party put due care and attention. The complainant did not followed medical advice. She went to Father Mullers Hospital and done excision of sinus tract from there her own violation.
Post operative wound site induration inflammatory process causing gaping of structure, wound infection, foreign body reaction to suture material, suture granuloma etc. The sinus tract diagnosed to have developed in the wound site of complainant can be due to granulomatous reaction to exogenous or endogenous materials which has no-immune mechanism and the same is caused by factors beyond control of the surgeon.
There is no deficiency in service negligence from Opposite Parties side and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The evidence consist of Pw1 and Pw2 and Dw1 to D3. The complainant filed documents marked as Ext A1 to A10 and Ext B1(X1) and B2. Ext A1 is the discharge summary, Ext A2 is report issued by Dr. Reshma. G.Kini, Ext A3 is discharge summary of Father Mullers Hospital, Ext A4 is registered lawyer notice to Opposite Party No:1, Ext A5 is registered lawyer notice to Opposite Party No:2, Ext A6 and 7 are Postal acknowledgments, Ext A8 is reply notice send by Opposite Party No:1, Ext A9 is reply notice send by opposite Party No:2 and Ext A10 is prescription. Ext B1 is Medical records, Ext B2 is Radiology report, Ext X1 is medical reports.
Following points arised for consideration in the case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service negligence from the side of opposite Parties
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
The case of complainant is that she was suffering from bleeding after four months of her pregnancy. She consulted Opposite Party No:2 doctor advised abortion considering dangerous to the child in the womb and complainant agreed for that.
On 10/10/2016 Opposite Party No:2 conducted MTP on her, discharged on 13/10/2016 from Opposite Party No:1 hospital evidenced by Ext A1 discharge summary.
The complainant was under bed rest for one week but started bleeding on the abdominal wound. The Opposite party No:2 prescribed medicine, bleeding continued even after one month. Scanning is done opposite Party No:2 told not to take serious about the issue, but bleeding continued.
The opposite Party No:2 admits she treated complainant. According to Opposite Party No:2 complainant reported on 02/01/2017 with complaint of discharge from wound advised that there was a sinus tract advised excision if no improvement. Further states that complainant reported to Opposite Party No:1 hospital on 09/10/2016 with a complaint of recurrent spotting from vagina willingness not to continue pregnancy and also for sterelisation conducted Hysterotomy and sterilization discharged on 13/10/2016. Thereafter reported on the 10th operative day with serious discharge from the wound site. The Opposite Party No:2 prescribed antibiotic and ultra sound scanning was done explained that there was serious tract and gave medicine for one week.
But complainant went to Father Mullers Hospital excision of sinus tract was done, by Dr. Sujaya V Rao, Lab test report dt: 12/01/2017 shows that bleeding and puss was due to infection on abdominal wound due to presence of foreign body. Fractures are suggestive of sinus tract.
Excision of sinus tract was done and wound is healed well and discharged from hospital.
The case pleaded by complainant is that Opposite Party No:2 irresponsibly or negligently conducted the surgery due to presence of foreign body thereby infection on the abdominal wound. It is true that some bleeding is normal during the heeling process. But abdominal bleeding indicates complications. In this case Ext A2 report shows skin with sinus tract with surrounding chronic inflammatory infiltrate and numerous granulomass and foreign body type of giant cells. From Mangalore hospital adviced excision of sinus tract. Second surgery is done accordingly bleeding is cured.
In medical negligence issues even though treatment not successful doctor cannot be blamed in all cases unless medical negligence is proved.
So also doctor cannot be held liable to medical negligence merely because they could not cure the disease.
The complainant has no case that doctor did not treat the patient by conducting Hysterotomy not by reasonable standards. In such case no deficiency in service or deficiency in service can be attributed.
But inspite of all it is considered malpractice to leave foreign body/object inside a person after surgical procedure. The Opposite Party No:2 says he also adviced excision of sinus tract if not cured by medicine.
The complainant suffered physical agony, mental torture during initial surgery. He has to undergone second surgery there by also suffered pain and suffering, the second surgery is necessitated due to bleeding in abdomen wound is due to the negligence from the Opposite Party No:2.
Dw3 testified that foreign body reaction is the reaction of body to something not normally present at that location. It can came from any other part of the body or from outside the body also. It can happen at the time of surgery.
In cross examination there is no suggestion denying the existence of any foreign body in the abdomen. But suggestion is made investing alternative possibility.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case and there is no satisfactory explanations as to why complication after Hysterotomy including the foreign body. The commission holds that complainant has proved his case that there is serious medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party No:2 relating to presence of foreign body in the abdomen that resulted in continuous bleeding which caused to abortion of the child in the womb. The complainant suffered huge mental agony pain and discomfort for more than two months. In this contest complainant is entitled for compensation.
The complainant claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as total compensation including medical expense. But complainant has not produced even a single medical bill to prove such a loss.
Considering the fact that excision of sinus tract surgery is conducted in Manglore hospitalized from 03/01/2017 to 09/01/2017 a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is fixed formal reasonable in all heads. The opposite Party No:1 being the hospital where complainant was treated, Opposite Party No:2 who performed the surgery, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Complainant is entitled cost of the litigation also.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite Party No:1 and opposite Party No:2 jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards compensation as above to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization and as to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Discharge summary.
A2- Report issued by Dr. Reshma. G. Kini.
A3- Discharge summary of Father Mullers Hospital.
A4- Registered lawyer notice to OP.1.
A5- Registered Lawyer notice to OP.2.
A6 & A7 Postal Acknowledgments.
A8- Reply notice send by OP No.1.
A9- Reply notice send by OP No.2.
A10- Prescription.
B1- Medical records.
B2- Radiology Report.
X1- Medical records.
Witness Examined
Pw1- Lijitha.V.A.
Pw2- Dr. Reshma. G. Kini.
Dw1- Raghavendra Prasad. K.U.
Dw2- Dr.Sheethal .C.M.
Dw3- Sujaya V Rao.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
