Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/1/2020

Sukumaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Y.V.K Hospital Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

M/s Sathiyavel.K

20 Jun 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:02.01.2020

  Date of Reservation     :08.06.2023

  Date of Order              :20.06.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                         : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,         :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.01/2020

TUESDAY,THE20^thDAY OF JUNE 2023

Sukumaran,

Son of Paramasivam,

No.55, Narasingapuram 5^th street,

Maduvankarai,

Guindy,

Chennai 600032.                                                             ..Complainant.

-Vs-

1. Mrs.Bharani Prabhu, Director,

    Y.V.K. Hospital Enterprises Pvt. Limited,

    No.142, Devanathan Street,

    Mandaveli,

    Chennai 600028.

 

2.Dr.Mrs. Lavanya Yogi,

   Sr.Physician,

   Y.V.K.Hospital Enterprises Pvt. Limited,

   No.142, Devanathan Street,

   Mandaveli,

   Chennai 600028.

 

3. Dr.Mrs. Y.Vedakumari, Physician,

    Y.V.K.Hospital Enterprises Pvt. Limited,

    No.142, Devanathan Street,

    Mandaveli,

    Chennai 600028.                                                   ..Opposite Parties.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant  :M/s. K. Sathiyavel, K. Palani,

                                            M.N Kathir, K. Muthukumarasamy                    

Counsel for Opposite Parties:M/s. Dr.B. Cheran, Mr. M. Nagarathinam

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and the counsel for the Opposite Parties this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to refund a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- spent towards medical expenses at the hospital of the Opposite Parties and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the pain and sufferings as well for deficiency in the service of the Opposite Parties due to multiple deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant is a resident of Velachery and he had been given in marriage to one Shanmuga Priya and owing to the said wedlock she had got conceived and as such she had been taking treatment at the Opposite Parties’ hospital namely YVK Hospital.

2.     As the pregnancy being the first pregnancy for the Complainant's wife, he had been subjecting her for periodical medical check ups. Hence treatment had taken place right from the date of her diagnose namely eighth week of her pregnancy and thus she had been under the treatment of Opposite Parties, all along. The Opposite Parties had stated that the hospital does not have scan facilities, and they have directed the Complainant and his wife to avail the same at the hands of Saravana Scan situated at T.Nagar. Such scanning had been done for more than four times as advised by the Opposite Parties. As far as the condition of the Complainant's wife is concerned, she is maintaining good health and the same can be seen as per the records maintained at the hospital of the Opposite Parties and the record issued by National Health Mission, Government of Tamilnadu.

3.     The Complainant submitted that on 18.11.2018, his wife had felt some pain in her abdomen and hence she had been produced before the Opposite Parties for treatment. The 2^nd and 3rd of the Opposite Parties, have thoroughly checked up the Complainant's wife and thereafter had given an injection to reduce the pain and as such they have assured her that the same is only a normal pain in the course of the pregnancy.

4.     The Complainant further submitted that as the said pain had been developed once again on 19.11.2018, she had once again visited the Opposite Parties hospital and the 3^rd of the Opposite Party, after a thorough check up had conveyed to her that it is only a normal pain and thus insisted her stay in the hospital for one day and similarly as the 2^nd of the Opposite Party had also vouched the same, the Complainant's wife had been admitted in the said hospital. After such admission and as per the advice of the Opposite Parties, one more scan also had taken, though the result was also as usual.

5.     Thereafter the 2^nd of the Opposite Party had compelled the Complainant's wife to stay in the hospital indefinitely and when the same is questioned, the Complainant and his wife have been threatened by the 2^nd Opposite Party and she had also exaggerated the situation by uttering medical terms and so on.

6.     The Complainant submitted that he being a lay man and his wife and his child are very much important to him, had been shaken and left with no other option than acting at the instance of the Opposite Parties, and as such he had been forced to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the advance at the hospital.

7.     The Opposite Parties had informed the Complainant at 11.30 p.m in the night that the birth of the child is only through cesarean at the early hours of next day and thus sought the Complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/-. As the Complainant is helpless he had been put to severe shock and surprise as the due date of her delivery is away about a month later and he could not digest what is the necessity for such caesarean that too when the period of gestation is not over.

8.     In such circumstances on 21.11.2018 by 1.54 p.m. 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties have conducted a caesarean operation against their original assurance that there will be a normal delivery on the due date namely after a month.

9.     The Complainant submitted that the operation of such nature being serious a hospital must provide all security measures like operation theatre, qualified doctors, scan facilities, incubator, ambulance and emergency units and so on. It is further submitted that as the profession of the Doctor being a noble one the treatment and other consultation etc should be transparent and whereas the same is absent in the case on hand, as the Complainant's wife had been put into serious twists and turns.

10.    The Complainant submitted that the attempt of the Opposite Parties, in conducting caesarean instead of normal delivery at a later date, is not in good taste. Caesarean operation is also possible at the Hi-tech hospitals and whereas the caesarean operation, performed at the hospital of the Opposite Parties, where there is no such facility namely Anesthesia, Incubation and ambulance etc is bound to be condemned.

11.    It would be opt to show the negligence and as to how the Opposite Parties had misused the Complainant's faith and coerced them to part with the payment. If at all the Opposite Parties had detected that the baby developed mild respiratory distress, they should have referred to a nearby neonatal unit, when no such unit is available with them. The action of the Opposite Parties would clearly establish that there is a negligence on their part and they were very much interested in extracting the money from the Opposite Parties.

12.    During the surgery, the baby suffered from meconium aspiration. Because of which baby developed mild respiratory distress. The Complainant submitted that peculiarly enough, even after the birth of the child by 1.54 p.m. the misery is not over as all of the opposite parties have claimed that baby had consumed lot of water and thus claimed that the hospital of the Opposite Parties, lacks incubator provision and therefore they had directed the Complainant to take the child for treatment at another hospital namely Sri Ranka Hospital.

13.    The Complainant submitted that in the absence of incubator provision any operation that too caesarean especially in respect of child birth is illegal. The caesarean operation in the absence of incubator is serious one on one hand, the non- provision of ambulance for such emergency cases is also serious on the other hand. The opposition parties attached to YVK Hospital had categorically claimed that their hospital does not have any ambulance facility and therefore they had advised the Complainant to take such facility at the hands of the others and hence the Complainant had been left in lurch.

14.    The Complainant submitted that since the child's safety is important the Complainant took his baby to Ranka Hospital and the child had been examined for 10 minutes and they have also tried to remove the water consumed by the Baby by inserting the pipes through the nose and thereafter  had informed that the treatment of child is highly difficult as the child is suffering from breathing problem and the same could not be controlled by them and then they have also directed the Complainant to take the baby to CSI Kalyani hospital. Hence the Complainant had rushed to Kalyani hospital and admitted the child at the Intensive care Unit and similarly kept the baby in incubator and there at the said Kalyani hospital, the authorities have claimed that the child shall be under 24 hours observation. They have also advised that the child must be subjected to blood culture test. Thereafter a duty doctor had directed the Complainant to bring the mother's milk for every two hours between 21.11.2018 and 26.11.2018 and the said Dr.Lavanya the 2^nd Opposite Party herein, also claimed the bill by calculating in a rough paper and asked the Complainant to pay and discharge the patient namely the Complainant's wife. When the Complainant had insisted for original bill, he had been informed that it will take some time atleast 15 days only after payment they can issue bill etc.

15.    The Complainant further submitted that on 26.11.2018 the Complainant's wife had been discharged after the receipt of Rs.1.5 lakh in full and that thereafter, the Complainant's wife was taken to Kalyani Hospital and thereafter the child and mother are safe at the hands of Kalyani hospital, as otherwise great hardship would have caused to the Complainant.

16.    When the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 29.03.2019 to the Opposite Parties requiring them to tender a sum of Rs.25 lakh as compensation for the pain and suffering as well for deficiency in their services, the Opposite Parties issued a reply on 23.04.2019 with false allegations. Hence the complaint.

II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief are as follows:

17. The Opposite Parties categorically state that the allegations are unfounded, untenable and devoid of truth, and are neither supported nor could be buttressed by relevant and genuine documents. The Opposite Parties also reiterate emphatically that there is no breach of duty or of negligence on their part. They had exercised good care and professional skill in managing the case.

18.    The Complainant had misrepresented the true facts deliberately and had concealed evidence and documents. The allegations made are wrong, frivolous and misconceived. The complaint is vague and baseless. The complaint is made with malafide intentions and ulterior motives. The facts with regard to the treatment had been completely twisted to suit his needs by the Complainant and it is thus necessary to set-out the correct facts now.

on 18.11.2018 evening, a 19 years old pregnant female patient named Mrs. Soundarya alias Shanmuga Priya came to Opposite Party hospital with complaints of lower abdomen pain. It is true that 2nd 3^rd Opposite Parties have thoroughly checked up Complainant's wife and treated her. Her obstetric history primi gravid, LMP on 10.03.2018 and her EDD on 17.12.2018. Her menstrual history was regular - 30 days cycle. No past history of diabetes / systemic hypertensive / bronchial asthma / PTB and No history of surgery. Her vitals were stable and the Foetal heart rate was 140 bpm and regular. She was adviced urine tests to rule out urinary tract infection and was administered Inj. Voveran1 ampim and she was educated to monitor the foetal kick record. On 19.11.2018 at 08.30 PM, the patient came up again with complaints of abdominal pain.

19.    As the patient was developing pain often, the Opposite Parties advised admission. She got admitted on 19.11.2018. Inj. Betnesol 2 amps IM and Inj. TT third dose was given and Nasal Oxygen started. On admission her vitals BP- 120/70 mmHg, SPO2-98%, CBG-90 mg/dl, Pulse rate - 72/min, Temp- normal.

20.    Her systemic examination CVS S152 present no murmur, P/A uterus corresponds to 36 weeks and on & off mild uterine contractions, RS NVBS present. Patient was admitted for observation and close monitoring and Opposite Parties were not sure of duration of treatment and the probable date of delivery.

21.    The Opposite Parties wisely took another scan abdomen which was normal. Hence she was being watched during her admission.

22.    The Opposite Parties advised the patient to remain admitted for few days. The Complainant had alleged that Opposite Parties have exaggerated the situation. No; they were practical and shrewd. Their prediction turned true. The Patient was not unnecessarily cautioned. Things went on as per their precise assessment. On 21.11.2018, Complainant's wife complained that there was decreased perception of foetal movements. Ultrasound done previously on 20.11.2018, revealed the liquor to be adequate. So, there was no foetal compromise on 20.11.2018. But from heart rate monitor. Kick count was also maintained but the kicks were sluggish. Foetal heart rate started decelerating on 21.11.2018. Considering her clinical assessment Dr. Kamatchi Sathyan, anaesthetist was called for anaesthetic fitness, who examined the patient, evaluated the investigations and found her fit for surgery.

23.    Further submitted that Dr. Mangai Saravanan, Senior obstetrician was called for specialist care. She performed caesarean surgery at 1.45 PM on 21.11.2018. Complainant was explained the condition of the mother and the baby and the need to do caesarean surgery. Informed consent was obtained cesarean was performed. An alive male baby was born at 01.54pm on 21.11.2018 weighing 2.8kgs, who cried well immediately. Baby was mildly cyanosed and in view of meconium aspiration and mild respiratory distress baby was transferred to Neonatal Intensive care unit at Sri Ranga Hospital. If the Cesarean was delayed baby would have died. Surgery was performed by a team of qualified specialists. The Opposite Party hospital has a well equipped operation theatre and has emergency units. Scan facilities, incubator and ambulance are not must for a hospital, post natally mother was treated well and was discharged within 4 days in a healthy condition. Both mother and baby are normal. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III.   The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments,  in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed  documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A5. The Opposite Parties had submitted his proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Parties document was marked as Ex.B-1.

V. Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

 

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

 

 3. To what other relief,  the Complainant is entitled to?

 

POINT NO. 1 :-

24.    The undisputed facts are that the Complainant’s wife who was pregnant had developed abdominal pain and was admitted in the Opposite Parties’ hospital on 19.11.2018, where the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties had conducted caesarean on 21.11.2018 and  a live male baby was born to her on 21.11.2018 at 1.54 p.m. Due to respiratory difficulties the baby was shifted to Sri Ranka Hospital, from where the baby was shifted to CSI Kalyani Hospital. After post natal treatment the complainant’s wife was discharged within 4 days.

25.    The dispute arose as against their assurance of normal delivery the Opposite Parties had performed caesarean and due to inadequate facilities in the hospital and non availability of operation theatre, qualified doctors, scan facilities, incubator, ambulance  the Complainant was made to suffer.

26.    The contention of the Complainant is that the Complainant’s wife on 18.11.2018, had felt some pain in her abdomen and hence went to the Opposite Parties for treatment, where the 2^nd and 3rd of Opposite Parties, have thoroughly checked up the Complainant's wife and thereafter had given an injection to reduce the pain stating that it was is only a normal pain in the course of the pregnancy. Further submitted that as the said pain had been developed once again on 19.11.2018, she had once again visited the Opposite Parties who insisted her stay in the hospital for one day and hence the Complainant's wife had been admitted in the said hospital. Thereafter the 2^nd of the Opposite Party had compelled the Complainant's wife to stay in the hospital indefinitely exaggerating the situation by uttering medical terms. He had been forced to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the advance at the hospital, when the scan centres have claimed that everything is normal and similarly the 3^rd of the Opposite Party had told the Complainant that everything was shaping on well. He had been put to severe shock and surprise as the due date of her delivery is away about a month later and he could not digest what is the necessity for such caesarean that too when the period of gestation is not over. In such circumstances on 21.11.2018 by 1.54 p.m. the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties have conducted a caesarean operation against their original assurance that there will be a normal delivery on the due date namely after a month. Moreover the operation of such nature being serious a hospital must provide all security measures like operation theatre, qualified doctors, scan facilities, incubator, ambulance and emergency units and so on. If at all the Opposite Parties had detected that the baby developed mild respiratory distress, they should have referred to a nearby neonatal unit, when no such unit is available with them. The action of the Opposite Parties would clearly establish that there is a negligence on their part and they were very much interested in extracting the money from the Opposite Parties. During the surgery, the baby suffered from meconium aspiration. Because of which baby developed mild respiratory distress. Even after the birth of the child by 1.54 p.m. on 21.11.2018 the misery is not over as all of the opposite parties have claimed that baby had consumed lot of water and thus claimed that the hospital of the Opposite Parties, lacks incubator provision and therefore they had directed the Complainant to take the child for treatment at another hospital namely Sri Ranka Hospital.

27.    Thereafter they have claimed that the child has to be observed for two hours at the incubator and only thereafter they can give their opinion etc. and whereas the said Doctor at Ranka Hospital after a lapse of 30 minutes had informed that the treatment of child is highly difficult as the child is suffering from breathing problem and the same could not be controlled by them and then they have also directed the Complainant to take the baby to CSI Kalyani hospital. Hence the Complainant had rushed to Kalyani hospital and admitted the child at the Intensive care Unit and similarly kept the baby in incubator and there at the said Kalyani hospital, the authorities have claimed that the child shall be under 24 hours observation. They have also advised that the child must be subjected to blood culture test. the Complainant had been transferring the mother's milk from Opposite Parties (YVK) hospital to Kalyani hospital for every two hours between 21.11.2018 and 26.11.2018. Further contended that on 26.11.2018 the Complainant's wife had been discharged after the receipt of Rs.1.5 lakh in full and that thereafter, the Complainant's wife was taken to Kalyani Hospital and thereafter the child and mother are safe at the hands of Kalyani hospital, as otherwise great hardship would have caused to the Complainant.

28.    The Opposite Parties contended that on 18.11.2018 evening, a 19 years old pregnant female patient named Mrs. Soundarya alias Shanmuga Priya came to Opposite Party hospital with complaints of lower abdomen pain.  It is true that 2^nd and  3^rd Opposite Parties have thoroughly checked up Complainant's wife and treated her. Her obstetric history - primi gravid, LMP on 10.03.2018 and her EDD on 17.12.2018. Her menstrual history was regular - 30 days cycle. No past history of diabetes / systemic hypertensive / bronchial asthma / PTB and No history of surgery. Her vitals were stable and the Foetal heart rate was 140 bpm and regular. She was adviced urine tests to rule out urinary tract infection and was administered Inj. Voveran1 ampim and she was educated to monitor the foetal kick record. On 19.11.2018 at 08.30 PM, the patient came up again with complaints of abdominal pain.

29.    As the patient was developing pain often, the Opposite Parties advised admission. She got admitted on 19.11.2018. Inj. Betnesol 2 amps IM and Inj. TT third dose was given and Nasal Oxygen started. On admission her vitals BP- 120/70 mmHg, SPO2-98%, CBG-90 mg/dl, Pulse rate - 72/min, Temp- normal.      Her systemic examination CVS S152 present no murmur, P/A uterus corresponds to 36 weeks and on & off mild uterine contractions, RS NVBS present. Patient was admitted for observation and close monitoring and Opposite Parties were not sure of duration of treatment and the probable date of delivery. The Opposite Parties wisely took another scan abdomen which was normal. Hence she was being watched during her admission. On 21.11.2018, Complainant's wife complained that there was decreased perception of foetal movements. Ultrasound done previously on 20.11.2018, revealed the liquor to be adequate. So, there was no foetal compromise on 20.11.2018. But from admission, the patient was put on foetal heart rate monitor. Kicks count was also maintained but the kicks were sluggish. Foetal heart rate started decelerating on 21.11.2018.Dr. Kamatchi Sathyan, anaesthetist was called for anaesthetic fitness examined the patient, evaluated the investigations and found her fit for surgery. Dr.Mangai Saravanan, Senior obstetrician was called for specialist care. She performed caesarean surgery at 1.45 PM on 21.11.2018. Complainant was explained the condition of the mother and the baby and the need to do caesarean surgery. Informed consent was obtained. An alive male baby was born at 01.54 p.m on 21.11.2019 weighing 2.8 kgs who cried immediately. In view of meconium aspiration and mild respiratory distress baby was transfereed to Neonatal intensive care unit at Sri Ranga Hospital.  Further at CSI Kalyani Hospital the baby was under 24 hours observation which does not mean the baby was very sick. The Complainant’s wife was after all an operated patient and there is no question of shifting her. All due care was taken of her, Postnatally mother was treated with appropriate antibiotics and symptomatic medication. She was discharged within 4 days in a healthy condition. Both mother and baby are normal because of timely action of Opposite Parties.

30.    A perusal of Ex.A-1, Health card issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, would show that the Complainant’s wife was consulting with the Government Hospital till August 2018. From Ex.A-2 it is evident that the Complainant’s wife Mrs.Shanmuga Priya was admitted in the Opposite Parties’ Hospital on 19.11.2018 with lower abdomen pain and decreased perception of foetal movements. The discharge summary issued by the Opposite Parties would reveal that careful monitoring of FHR and movements were done. PV finding showed no active uterine contraction or draining on 19.11.2018. On 20.11.2018, FHR was good and regular, PV showed head unengaged with soft cervix. Scan done on 20.11.2018 was normal. On 21.11.2018 considering the indication of floating head with irritable uterus and decreased perception of foetal movements, the Complainant’s wife was taken up for LSCS. An alive male child was born at 1.54 pm on 21.11.2018 who cried well immediately after birth. It is seen that baby was cyanosed and in view of meconium aspiration and mild respiratory distress, baby was transferred to NICU at Sri Ranga Hospital, from where the baby was shifted to CSI Kalyani Hospital. Ex.A-3 is the bill issued by the Kalyani Hospital.

31.    On perusal of records and in the facts and circumstances of the case though the expected date of delivery was 17.12.2018, which was almost one month away, considering the complications of Floating head, Irritable Uterus, decreased perception of foetal movements, slowing down of foetal heart rate, the Complainant’s wife was rightly taken up for caesarean, where LSCS was performed successfully and a male baby was delivered by the complainant’s wife. As the baby developed complications the Opposite Party had referred to Sri Ranga Hospital from where the baby was taken to Kalyani Hospital. On 25.11.2018 the Complainant’s wife discharged. Both mother and baby were in a stable condition. The contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties had assured of normal delivery and that due to greed and in order to extract money surgery was conducted by the Opposite Parties when the date of delivery was far ahead of one month cannot be accepted when the foetal movements were decreased with slowing down of foetal heart rate, the Opposite Parties had to take timely action by proceeding with appropriate treatment to save the mother and child which the Opposite Parties had done by performing caesarean surgery for delivery of baby. Further the respiratory difficulties faced the baby immediately after birth and shifting to other hospital for further treatment would only justify the caesarean procedure adopted by the Opposite Parties.

32.    The contention of non availability of facilities such as operation theatre, qualified doctors, Anaesthesia, scan facilities, incubator, ambulance at the hospital, it could be seen without qualified doctors, Anaesthesia and operation theatre, the Complainant’s wife would not have undergone caesarean at the Opposite Parties hospital and further the mandatory requirements of scan facilities, ambulance, incubator in hospitals is not proved by the Complainant. Further the Opposite Parties had taken the necessary steps required for the baby by transferring to nearby hospitals having required facilities and the Complainant cannot find fault with the Opposite Parties for not having all the facilities, when appropriate action was taken by the Opposite Parties for treating the Complainant’s wife and child. The Opposite Parties had taken proper care and there is no dereliction of duty which resulted in loss or damage to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant having failed to prove that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service. Accordingly the point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3:

33.    As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant he is not entitled for the reliefs claimed or for any other reliefs. Accordingly Points Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 20^th of June 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	05.06.2018	Report sheet issued by National Health Welfare Organisation in PICME No,13006926447
Ex.A2	19.11.2018	Medical Bills issued by Y.V.K Hospital Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Ex.A3	28.11.2018	Medical Bills issued by Kalyani Multi Speciality Hospital, Chennai
Ex.A4	29.03.2019	Notice issued by Complainant’s Counsel
Ex.A5	23.04.2019	Reply notice issued by Opposite Party’s Counsel

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

Ex.B1

Copy of case sheet of patient

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT