State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. K.Anji Reddy S/O K.Lachi Reddy vs Barmavath Anasuja W/O B.Gopal And ... on 28 July, 2011
BEFORE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.150 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.59 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY Between Dr. K.Anji Reddy S/o K.Lachi Reddy aged about 55 years, Medical Practitioner Narsapur, Medak District. Appellant/opposite party No.1 A N D 1. Barmavath Anasuja W/o B.Gopal, aged 25 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Mohammadnagar Gate Thanda, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District. Respondent/complainant 2. Dr.Y.Madhavi,MDDGO, Main Road, Narsapur, Medak District. Respondent/opposite party no.2 Counsel for the Appellant Sri P.Venkat Reddy Counsel for the Respondents Served QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SMT M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER THURSDAY THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND ELEVAN Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) ***
1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant was pregnant and approached the opposite party No.1 on 16.1.2005 and on other occasions and for periodical checkups. The opposite party No.1 referred the complainant to the opposite party No.2 who is consultant Gynecologist of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party no.2 after examining the complainant advised for ultra sound scanning of pregnancy. The report of the sonography of the complainant had showed Single Viable Foetus. The last checkup was done on 15.5.2005 and the opposite party No.2 prescribed some medicines and also gave her opinion that the delivery would be expected on 30.5.2005 and informed that the foetus/child in womb was growing healthy and it would be a normal delivery on 30.5.2005. On 20.5.2005 the complainant developed abdominal / labour pains and she was immediately taken to the opposite party No.1 Nursing home where the doctors attended the complainant and got admitted her in the Nursing home as in-patient. The opposite party No.1 without examining the patient, prepared case sheet stating that the Caesarean operation should be done and demanded for deposit of `8,000/- in the Nursing home. The complainants husband had only `2,000/-, he had paid the amount and left for his village for getting the balance amount. The complainants husband left the Nursing home at about 4.30. P.M., thereafter within five minutes the opposite party No.1 refused to give treatment to the complainant for want of required total amount of `8,000/-.
3. The attendants of the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to give the treatment and save the patient, but the opposite party No.1 refused to admit the complainant in the nursing home. Thereafter at 4.45 p.m. the complainant delivered a live male child infront of the nursing home. As the child was not crying after delivery, the attendants requested the opposite party No.1 and his staff doctors to give appropriate medical assistance, but as they did not come for any help both the complainant and the child were taken to Dangoria Charitable Trust hospital at Narsapur where the doctors declared the child brought dead and the complainant who required immediate medical attention stayed about 10 days as inpatient in the said hospital. Hence, the complainant attributed medical negligence to the opposite parties for not giving treatment to them.
4. The opposite party No.1 filed resisted the case contending that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec.12(a) of Consumer Protection Act and stated that the expected date of delivery is an approximate date and it can be plus or minus 10 days. It is contended that the attendants refused to sign on the consent form and also they did not bring any records of previous check ups. On 20.5.2005 the complainant was examined and she was referred to Gandhi hospital due to following reasons:
1.
A breech presentation has a high risk of complications to fetus apart from death.
2. High risk of congenital anomalies.
3. To predict whether she can deliver normally is difficult as several breech & phallic presentations keep delivering normally even at institutes and Gandhi hospital after they are prepared for caesarian section. The waiting time for caesarian at the institutes(Teaching) is a like a short trial while being monitored. It is a proven fact 2% cases prepared for caesarian deliver in emergency theatre. This patient delivered and had a retained placenta which also needs institutional management.
5. After any normal delivery placenta can be retained in uterus, which also needs institutional treatment. As the patient has not brought prescriptions yet she was examined earlier, oxygen was kept at first instance and while testing it was found that there is abnormal presentation. Fatal distress was indicating fatal jeopardy and immediately oxygen inhalation given to the complainant. The risk of fetal death is more in breech presentation and caesarian section. At the time of examination before on set of pain on 15.5.2005 it was cephalic on head indicating normal delivery but as the fetus keeps moving inside any abnormal presentation is possible at the time of delivery after setting into labour. The risk of fetal death and risk of unexpected complications to mother were not accepted by the attendants and they referred to Gandhi hospital and they refused to sign on consent form. They did not accept risk of fetal demise, and consent was not given they were referred to a higher institution with Neonatal care.
6. To predict whether she can deliver normally or by operation is difficult as several breech and (head) presentations keep delivery normally even at Institute and Gandhi hospital after they are prepared for caesarian section. The waiting time for caesarian at the institutes (Teaching) is like a short trial while being monitored. It is a proven fact 2% cases prepared for caesarian deliver in emergency theatre normally. The complainant delivered and had a retained placenta which also needs institutional management and the baby probably would have survived by operative delivery. They delayed and waited on the road instead of going to any other institution. Proper treatment was given to the complainant and the complainant was properly advised to go for caesarian operation or to go to higher institution as risk is involved. The method of treatment and advice given by the opposite party is in consonance with medical authorities. The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The opposite party No.2 filed counter with the same contents of the counter filed by the opposite party No.1. This opposite party further submits that her profession is insured with the National Insurance Co.ltd., branch Basheerbagh, Hyderabad vide policy No.550215/46/04 87-00000339 valid from March, 2005 to March, 2006. The said insurance company is proper and necessary party to the above proceedings. Hence to dismiss the complaint with costs and penalty.
8. The complainant was examined as PW1 and also she has filed her affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A19. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
9. The District Forum has allowed the complaint opining that the failure of the opposite parties in attending on the complainant on 20.5.2005 resulting in her delivering male child on the road constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the district forum, the first opposite party has filed the complaint contending that he has not treated the complainant on 20.5.2005 and he has advised her to go for a higher centre in view of lack of facilities in his nursing home as also in the light of precarious situation the complainant was placed in.
11. The point for consideration is whether the opposite parties no.1 and 2 had been negligent in administering treatment to the complainant?
12. The complainant states that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 practice at one place, at a multi specialty nursing home being run by the opposite party no.1 in the name and style of Syama Nursing Home, Narsapur. The opposite parties denied that both of them were running Shyama Nursing Home. A perusal of prescriptions issued by the opposite party no.2 does not reveal the name of Nursing Home being run by the second opposite party. It can be presumed that the opposite party no.1 has been running Shyama Nursing Home and the opposite party no.2 is a consultant to the nursing home.
13. The complainant though states that she had been under the treatment of the second opposite party for her first delivery and the second delivery as well, does not come-forward with any evidence to show that she was treated by the second opposite party for her first delivery. She states that her first delivery was normal and she gave birth to a male child. The treatment she had undergone when she became pregnant for the first time has no relevance to the facts involved in the matter. It is a fact that the complainant had been treated by the second opposite party for her second delivery. The prescriptions dated 16.1.2005, 23.1.2005, 13.3.2005, 10.4.2005 and 15.5.2005 establish that the complainant was carrying and her expected date of delivery is 30.5.2005.
Till 15.5.2005 there has been no any complaints from the complainant in regard to the treatment administered by the second opposite party.
14. The entire gamut of dispute centers around the circumstances that prevailed on 20.5.2005. The complainant states that on 20.5.2005 she has developed abdominal pain and she was rushed to nursing home of the first opposite party at about of 4 p.m. whereupon a resident doctor Smt Y.Nirmala attended the complainant by charging `50/- towards consultation fees and without examining the complainant, she has informed the complainant and her relatives that the complainant has to undergo cesarean section for which she has stated to have demanded an amount of `8000/- of which the complainants husband had paid `2,000/- and at about 4.30 p.m. the doctors at the hospital of the opposite party no.1 refused to administer treatment to the complainant as a result of which she was compelled to deliver a male baby in front of the hospital of the opposite party no.1. It is contended on behalf of the first opposite party that he or any other doctor in his nursing home had not treated the complainant on 20.5.2005.
15. The complainant had relied upon the medical record of Dangoria Charitable Trust to contend that the opposite parties had administered negligent medical treatment to her. The medical records of Dangoria Hospital would show that certain investigations such hemoglobin count was conducted and medicines, Tredudol, Mixgoen etc., had been prescribed. The medical record in any manner does not support the case of the complainant. The complainant has not filed any documents to show that she was treated at the hospital of the opposite party no.1 on 20.5.2005. The complainant has not turned up to face cross examination particularly in regard to the medical record of the Dangoria hospital.
16. It is the consistent version of the opposite party that on 20.5.2005 the complainant was not at all treated at the hospital of the first opposite party. Even according to the version of the complainant, she was not treated on 20.5.2005 at the hospital by the opposite party no.2.
The referral letter issued by the first opposite party referring the complainant to a higher center has not been filed by the complainant in order to show that she was treated at the hospital of opposite partyno.1. The complainant had failed to establish that she was administered the treatment on 20.5.2005 at the hospital of the opposite party no.1. The findings recorded by the District Forum are not based on any evidence and are liable to be set aside.
16. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.27.7.2011 KMK*