National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nivedita Singh vs Dr. Asha Bharti, Cmo, District Women ... on 26 May, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI Revision Petition No. 715 of 2010 (Against the order dated 27.11.2009 in Appeal No. 80/2009 of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow) Nivedita Singh W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Singh R/o New Basti Sakelenabad Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh Present address : 1/28, F-2, Sector-1 Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. Petitioner Vs. 1. Dr. Asha Bharti Chief Medical Officer District Women Hospital Ghazipur, U.P. 2. Dr. Renuka Sinha, Gynacologist-1 District Women Hospital Ghazipur, U.P. Present address : Chief Medical Superintendent Women Hospital Mau. 3. Dr. Tarkeshwar Gynacologist-2 District Women Hospital Ghazipur, U.P. Present address : Bharat Sarkari Afeem Evam Chharode Factory, Ghazipur District Ghazipur. 4. Smt. Priyambada Rai, Nurse District Women Hospital Ghazipur, U.P. 5. Smt. Beena Bharti, Staff Nurse (Sister) District Women Hospital Ghazipur, U.P. 6. Government of Uttar Pradesh Through District Magistrate Ghazipur, U.P. 7. Oriental Insurance Co. Branch Office, Station Road Ghazipur Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B N P SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR S K NAIK, MEMBER For Petitioner Mr. Balwant Singh and Mr. Attul Tripathi Advocates Pronounced on 26th May, 2010 ORDER
PER JUSTICE B N P SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER Factual matrix are that petitioner Nivedita Singh was admitted to Ghazipur District Women Hospital on 26th august, 2004 in connection with delivery due to her. She delivered a child without there being any complication in process of delivery. As usual, a small cut in the delivery canal was made by respondent doctors to facilitate smooth delivery of child. Since delivery followed bleeding from delivery canal, Doctors attending her adopted process of lithotomy, which is said to be routine procedure of a delivery case. Petitioner has a strong grievance against process adopted by treating Doctor when her legs were hung higher to level of her body, causing impediment in normal flow of blood towards toes of her feet. She alleged that as a consequence first and second toes of her right foot got blackened and developed gangrene. Be that as it may, she was discharged from respondent hospital on 1st November, 2004, pursuant to which she was taken and admitted to Shail Nursing Home at Varanasi. However, despite treatment she could not get respite and then she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 18th September, 2004, where she was suggested amputation of two toes. She also took consultation at Ganga Ram Hospital and eventually was admitted in Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital where first and second toes of her right feet were amputated, for which her parents had to incur a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs over her treatment. Alleging deficiency on part of respondent Doctors, nurses and hospital as also Insurance Company, a complaint was filed with District Forum.
Attributions so made were negated by respondents disowning medical negligence on their part or any deficiency in service. Taking refuge behind discharge note, which did not allegedly show sign of her toes having suffered injury, their defence was that she had injury in her toes prior to her being taken to hospital for delivery.
Opinion of Dr. J.P. Pandey, who was summoned by hospital, too was referred to. District Forum analyzing evidence accepted defence of respondents and consequently dismissed complaint. State Commission too for want of credible evidence about petitioner having suffered gangrene in toes following lithotomy adopted by respondents, having affirmed finding of District Forum, dismissed appeal.
Focal issue that was raised by petitioner in complaint was that when bleeding following delivery of child could not be arrested, her feet were hung in air and she was kept in that position for a longer period and hence there was no supply of blood to feet and eventually toes were rendered deficient and she developed gangrene. As has been noticed above, referring to opinion of Dr. J.P. Pandey and also regard being had to evidences, State Commission held that injury in toes was not fall out of delivery process. Though after discharge from respondent hospital on 1st of November, 2004 petitioner was treated in Shail Nursing Home, Varanasi, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, Ganga Ram Hospital and also Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital, where first and second toes of her right feet were amputated, none of the Doctors attending her in these hospitals ever expressed opinion about her toes having developed gangrene as a fall out of delivery process that was carried out in respondent hospital. Though a certificate issued by Dr. Suresh Kumar on 4th November, 2004 pressed into service on behalf of petitioner who was of the view that since petitioner was kept for two hours in lithotomy position, that might have developed gangrene. State Commission, however, did not give credence to certificate issued by Dr. Suresh Kumar for the reasons that certificate in question was issued by the Doctor after 1 months of amputation of her toes and that apart, evidences did not show that Dr. Suresh Kumar had accompanied Dr. M.L. Sharma who performed amputation of toes of petitioner.
Though plethora of decisions were put on record before State Commission, it rightly, in our view, finding no evidence about deficiency on part of respondents had affirmed finding of District Forum. Since we have affirmed finding of fact returned by fora below, we do not wish to burden our order with decisions cited by parties at bar about maintainability of complaint by a person who was treated in a government hospital qua hospital and Doctors attending him. This being so, we find no merit in revision petition, which is resultantly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(B.N.P. SINGH, J) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh