BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 368/2001 Filed on 13.09.2001
Dated : 15.10.2010
Complainant:
Fathima, residing at T.C 46/1145, Azad Nagar, Manikavilakom, Poonthura, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. A.A. Hakkim)
Opposite parties :
Managing Director, Valsala Nursing Home, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
Dr. Roy Mathew, Partner, Valsala Nursing Home, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
Dr. Bindu, Doctor, Valsala Nursing Home, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 30.07.2010, the Forum on 15.10.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that on 25.05.2001 complainant was admitted for delivery in Valsala Nursing Home and on 27.05.2001 at 10.30 a.m she delivered a male child, that the delivery was a normal one and the 3rd opposite party who attended the delivery informed the husband of the complainant that the condition of the complainant is stable, that at about 12 p.m the 3rd opposite party informed the husband of the complainant that the condition of the complainant had deteriorated and advised him to take the complainant to Medical College Hospital for better treatment, that on 28.05.2001 complainant was admitted in the Medical College Hospital vide I.P No. 68325, that on investigation carried out by the Doctors at SAT Medical College Hospital, complainant came to know that her uterus had been removed by opposite parties without any reason, that the removal of uterus of the complainant was only due to the negligent, careless treatment at the time of delivery. The negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party has ruined the life of the complainant, that the peaceful family life of the complainant has also lost for ever. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation for loss, permanent disability, mental agony, physical sufferings and pain along with Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses and costs of the proceedings.
Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contending that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant on the ground that the complainant claimed Rs. 5,20,000/- towards compensation and expenses which exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, that complainant has availed the service without paying consideration. Opposite parties 1 & 2 is a partnership firm under the name and style 'Valsala Nursing Home', the managing partner is Dr. Kunjannamma Mathai. That the complainant was admitted in the opposite parties' hospital on 25.05.2001 at 4.25 p.m with mild labour pain, that she had a mild hypertension and had signs of preeclamptic taxaemia, that she was given necessary treatment and her B.P was controlled. On 26th May 2001 an ultra sound examination was done and found 40 weeks Gestation Cephalic presentation plus placenta upper segment, that on 27th May 2001 by 9 a.m more pain developed and on vaginal examination it was found that the actual labour pain had started, that she was given usual treatment and was in the labour room, monitoring her B.P, pulse the foetal heart of the baby, that on 10.50 a.m she delivered a normal full term male baby weighing 3.5 kg. Placenta was expelled. Since bleeding was a little more than the normal delivery necessary injections were given to arrest the bleeding and also for contraction of the uterus. Yet it was found that she is having more bleeding and blood was not clotting and found that developing coagulation deficiency and the uterus was not contracting. The relatives of the patient were informed about the condition of the patient. Since the bleeding could not in any way be controlled, it was decided by the team of doctors to do hysterectomy to the patient to save her life. The relatives were informed of this and the relatives agreed to this and requested the doctors to do whatever possible to save the life of the patient. The request form for operation was signed and given to doctors. When bleeding started, three bottles of blood were given and operation was done with blood transfusion and other necessary fluids. Seven bottles of blood were given to the patient, heavy bleeding was controlled. Doctors asked for more blood from the relatives, but since it was night they could not get more blood. So the doctors took the patient to SAT Hospital where sufficient blood is available. The unit chief gynecologist and duty doctor of SAT attended the patient. Thy had nothing to do, but only to continue the blood transfusion and to repeat the injections earlier given. Five more bottles of blood were given. When bleeding stopped, her condition improved. Her condition was coagulation failure for which correct treatment was given. There was no laxity, negligence or carelessness in handling the case throughout and the opposite parties were very happy that they could save the life of the complainant. Opposite parties arranged blood for Rs. 4,500/- as the relatives had no money with them at that time. Costly medicines were given to save her life. Opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount towards compensation or expenses incurred. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in giving treatment to the complainant?
Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? If so, at what amount?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P6. In rebuttal 2nd opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Ext. D1.
Points (i) to (iii):- There is no dispute on the point that complainant was admitted into opposite party's hospital on 25.05.2001 and on 27.05.2001 at 10.30 a.m she delivered a male child. It has been the case of the complainant that 3rd opposite party informed the husband of the complainant that the condition of the complainant had deteriorated and advised him to take the complainant to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, that on 28.05.2001 she was admitted in SAT Hospital and on investigation by doctors at SAT Hospital she came to know that her uterus had been removed by opposite parties without any reason. It has also been the case of the complainant that no consent was given by the complainant or her relatives for removing her uterus. Opposite parties rebutted the complainant by submitting that on 27.05.2001 at about 10.50 a.m complainant delivered a normal full term male baby weighing 3.5 kg. According to opposite parties since bleeding was little more than the normal delivery necessary injections were given to arrest the bleeding and also for contraction of uterus. Later it was found that the blood was not clotting. She developed coagulation deficiency and uterus was not contracting. It is the say of the opposite parties that the problems of the complainant were informed to the relatives of the complainant. Since bleeding could not be controlled, opposite parties decided to do hysterectomy to the patient to save her life. The relatives were informed of this and they agreed and requested the opposite parties to do whatever possible to save the life of the patient. Opposite party asserts that the operation was done after obtaining consent from the relatives. Ext. D1 is the Maternity Case Sheet furnished by the opposite parties. Ext. D1(a) is the copy of the consent given by the husband of the complainant for removing uterus. Evidently by Ext. D1(a), the case of the complainant that hysterectomy was done without the consent of the complainant or her relatives has no basis. The other thing to be looked into is whether there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties in giving treatment at the time of delivery. In support of the case complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P6. Ext. P1 is the O.P No. of the complainant issued by Valsala Nursing Home. Ext. P2 is the O.P. No. issued by SAT, Medical College Hospital. Ext. P3 is the copy of the advocate notice issued by the complainant to opposite parties claiming compensation and medical expenses from opposite parties. Ext. P4 is the acknowledgement cards and Ext. P5 the original postal receipts. Ext. P6 is the case record from SAT Hospital. On perusal of Ext. D1 especially Ext. D1(a) it is seen that opposite party had obtained consent from the husband of the complainant, thereby the case of the complainant that she had no knowledge about the removal of uterus goes. It is the stance of the opposite party that hysterectomy operation was done to save the life of the complainant. Complainant had adduced expert evidence by examining PW2 Dr. Sreekumary. In her chief examination she has deposed that the general condition of the patient at the time of admission was satisfactory and as per referral letter delivery was normal. When asked about the preeclamptic taxaemia she has deposed that “ഗര്ഭിണികളില് ആദ്യത്തെ പ്രസവത്തില് സാധാരണ കാണുന്ന ഒരു complication ആണിത്. 15% ആള്ക്കാര്ക്ക് ഇതുണ്ടാകാം. Hysterectomy ഈ patient-ന് ചെയ്തത് പ്രസവം കഴിഞ്ഞ് നിലയ്ക്കാത്ത രക്തപ്രവാഹം ഉണ്ടായതു കൊണ്ടാണ്. ഒരു complication ഇല്ലാത്ത patient-ഉം ഇത് കാരണം മരിക്കാം. പ്രസവം കഴിഞ്ഞ് മറുപിള്ള വന്ന ശേഷമാണ് ഇതുണ്ടാകാറ്...........................സാധാരണ മറ്റ് രോഗമൊന്നും ഇല്ലാത്ത ആളിനും ഉണ്ടാകാം. Unexpected complication ആണിത്.” Witness adds further that “hypertension വേണമെന്നില്ല, ഇതു വരാം. Uterus remove ചെയ്യാന് ഇത് കാരണം ആവാം. ഈ operation life saving management ആണ്. പ്രസവ സമയത്തുണ്ടായ അശ്രദ്ധ കൊണ്ട് bleeding ഉണ്ടായാല് അത് negligence അല്ലേ? (Q) സാധാരണ bleedingഉണ്ടായാല് മരുന്ന് കൊണ്ട് മാറ്റാം. അത് നിന്നില്ലെങ്കിലാണ് uterus remove ചെയ്യുന്നത്. (A) When asked whether the action of the opposite parties amounts to negligence, PW2 has deposed that “ഒരിക്കലുമല്ല. Timely treatment കൊടുത്തതു കൊണ്ടാണ് patient രക്ഷപ്പെട്ടത്.” She has further deposed that as per the reference letter and case records there is no negligence in the treatment. In view of the deposition of PW2 it is crystal clear that the patient was survived by prompt treatment and surgery done by opposite parties. In this context it should be mentioned that in a complaint for damages on account of negligence the onus lies on the complainant or patient to prove that the doctor was negligent and the said negligence resulted in the injury which is complained to be compensated. Basically, medical negligence means such negligence resulting from the failure on the part of the doctor to act in accordance with medical standards which are being practiced by an ordinary and reasonably competent man practicing the same art. Once a doctor accepts a patient this principle is applicable. It may be stated that to establish negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the claimant must show (a) what is the standard care; (b) on facts of the case, that opposite parties' conduct fell below that standard; (c) that the same had resulted to some injury to the patient.
In this case opposite party is a hospital and doctors. They have filed affidavit and have produced case sheet. Opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. During cross examination nothing has been elicitated from the opposite parties to controvert the affidavit filed by the opposite parties. On the other hand, complainant has filed affidavit and an independent doctor was examined by the complainant as PW2. She has been cross examined by opposite parties also. In the chief examination itself PW2 has deposed that the patient was survived only due to the prompt treatment and surgery done by the opposite parties. Expert opinion is the basis for determining medical negligence. As regards treatment, opposite parties had proved by positive satisfactory evidence that they had taken reasonable care and caution in giving treatment to the complainant to the best of their ability and knowledge of the subject and had acted in good faith in the interest of the health of the complainant. No material before us to prove otherwise. Complainant failed to prove any negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. In view of the above, we find opposite parties are not guilty of medical negligence. Complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear and suffer their costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of October 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 368/2001
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Fathima
PW2 - Dr. Sreekumari
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of O.P. No. of the complainant issued by Valsala
Nursing Home.
P2 - Copy of O.P. No. issued by SAT, Medical College Hospital.
P3 - Copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to opposite
party.
P4 - Acknowledgement cards
P5 - Postal receipts.
P6 - Copy of the case record.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
DW1 - Dr. Roy Mathew.
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of Maternity Case Sheet.
PRESIDENT
jb
