State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Chandra Behera & Others vs Dr. Ramamani Devi (O&G;),& Another on 28 November, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. CASE NO.35 OF 1998 1. Ramesh Chandra Behera, S/o. Mukunda Behera, Village- Pirikudi, P.O- Sakadi, Via- Phulabani, P.S- Khajuripada, Dist- Phulabani. 2. Kiran Bala Behera, D/o. Ramesh Chandra Behera. 3. Prachya Bala Behera, D/o. Ramesh Chandra Behera. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 are being minor represented through father guardian complainant no.1. Complainants. -Versus- 1. Dr. Ramamani Devi (O&G), Govt. Hospital, Assistant Surgeon, Phulbani, At/P.O/Dist- Phulbani. 2. Dr. Satyabadi Mohapatra, Surgical Specialist, Govt. Hospital, Phulbani, At/P.O/Dist- Phulbani. Opposite Parties. For the Complainants : M/s. K.N. Jena & Assoc. For the Opposite party no.1 : M/s. U.K. Samal & Assoc. For the Opposite party no.2 : M/s. R. Samal & Assoc. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE R.K. PATRA, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
Justice R.K.PATRA, PRESIDENT.
DATE: - 28TH NOVEMBER, 2007.
The complainants allege medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the treatment and death of wife of the complainant no.1.
2. The complainant no.1 is a clerk in Jawahar Novodaya Vidyalaya, Munduli. He married Coleta Digal alias Rasmita Digal, who was working as primary school teacher in Phulbani. Out of the wedlock they had two daughters aged about 7 and 5 years. On 18.01.1998, his wife (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) went to the Government Hospital, Phulbani being accompanied with her sister Sadhana to check-up her pregnancy which was about one and half month.
At that time the opposite party no.1 was in charge of outdoor. After checking her, she asked as to whether she wanted to keep the pregnancy or terminate it. As the couple had already two daughters, the deceased expressed for termination of the pregnancy. The opposite party no.1 advised her to go to her residence in the afternoon for abortion / washing the uterus. She stated that necessary instruments are available in her residential clinic and she would take fee of rupees 300/-. The opposite party no.1 was a neighbour whose house was situated about 100 metres away from the residence of the deceased. As advised, the deceased went to the residence of the opposite party no.1 in the evening and paid rupees 300/- as fees. The opposite party no.1 terminated the pregnancy. After it, she suffered acute pain and there was profuse bleeding and she lost her sense. The opposite party no.1 advised Sadhana (the sister of the deceased) to purchase medicines.
On her advice, the deceased was brought home in an auto rickshaw. As pain and bleeding did not subside, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Phulbani on the next day (19.01.1998). The opposite party no.1 checked her in the hospital and assured that she would be all-right within short time after taking medicines. On her advice, the deceased took admission in Gynic Ward of the hospital on 20.01.1998. Her condition was serious inasmuch as the belly portion was swelling and she was having unbearable pain. On 23.01.1998, she was referred to Surgical Ward of the hospital. Opposite party no.2, who was a surgical specialist, advised to take x-ray of the stomach of the deceased. After perusing x-ray report, he advised for intestine operation saying that it was perforated due to negligence washing of uterus for M.T.P. On demand, he was paid rupees 500/- as fees. The deceased stayed in the surgical ward of the Government hospital from 23.01.1998 to 30.01.1998, but there was no improvement in her condition. In order to shift the burden and negligence, he referred the case to Berhampur Medical College saying that she would get better treatment there.
The complainant no.1, accordingly, shifted her to Berhampur Medical college Hospital on 31.01.1998. There operation was made for repair of intestine, but it failed. He brought her back to Phulbani and got her admitted again in Phulbani District Hospital on 17.03.1998. As the deceased was refused treatment, she was taken to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 19.03.1998. She was admitted on the same day. On 09.04.1998, she was again operated upon, but she could not survive and expired on 10.04.1998. On the aforesaid allegations, the complaint petition is founded.
3. The opposite party no.1 in her show cause filed on 08.01.1999 denied the entire allegations made against her. She went to the extent of saying that she is not a specialist in Gynaecology and is not authorized to undertake any termination of pregnancy in the hospital as other specialists are available. According to her, on 20.01.1998, as the senior specialist was on leave she was in charge of O&G ward in the hospital. She stated that on that day as per the practice she referred the deceased to the Central Outpatient Department of the hospital. At that time, she made enquiry and noted down the case history in the bed-head ticket and mentioned her disease as Pain Abdomen since two days with history of MTP done on 18.01.1998. She alleges that the deceased might have terminated her pregnancy by some untrained hand / quack which is a common feature in the locality and the intestinal perforation was due to such handling by untrained hands.
On 20.09.2001, the opposite party no.1 has filed additional cause clarifying the position that she has got Master Degree in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and was attached to the Gynic department of the Government hospital, Phulbani. She reiterated that she is not involved at all in the termination of pregnancy of the deceased on 18.01.1998 either in the hospital or in her residential clinic.
4. The opposite party no.2 has filed a separate written version saying that on 20.01.1998, one Rasmita Digal was admitted in a serious condition in the Gynic ward and on 22.01.1998 she was referred to the department of surgery. He being a specialist in surgery in the Government hospital, advised x-ray of the abdomen. The x-ray report revealed intestine and uterus perforation of the deceased which required immediate operation. After taking risk bond, the deceased was operated upon by him along with team of doctors and nursing staff on 23.01.1998 morning. After opening of abdomen, it was found that it was filled with faecal matter and pus due to its septic condition. The whole intestine was matted, friable and inflamed. The intestine and uterus were found perforated.
Both the rents were stitched.
After abdominal toileting, it was closed giving two flank drainage for draining out the pus and the tissues of intestine stitches did not unite due to weak defence mechanism from previous inflammation. A fistula was developed at anastomatic site for which the deceased was referred to MKCG Medical College, Berhampur on 30.01.1998 for better treatment. He says that there being no M.T.P. in the hospital and the deceased having come with a perforated and septic intestine, the opposite party no.2 had done his best to save her life. He denied to have received any fee from the complainant no.1.
5. The complainant no.1 has filed affidavit on 05.02.2001 saying that the facts stated in the complaint are true. One Narendra Kumar Digal has filed affidavit saying that on 18.01.1998 on being called by Sadhana Digal he went to the residence of opposite party no.1 and brought the deceased in his three wheeler to her house.
The opposite party no.1 has filed affidavit evidence. The complainant no.1 deposed before this Commission on 12.01.2006. He was cross-examined by both the opposite parties.
6. Two questions arise for consideration in this complaint;
(i) Was the pregnancy of the deceased terminated by opposite party no.1 on 18.01.1998 at her residential clinic ?
(ii) Was the opposite party no.2 negligent in conducting operation in the Government Hospital on 23.01.1998 ?
The opposite party no.1 categorically denies to have terminated the pregnancy of the deceased.
On the other hand, it is asserted by the complainant no.1 that it was she (opposite party no.1) who did the MTP on 18.01.1998 at the residential clinic. Admittedly, no MTP was conducted in the Government Hospital, Phulbani. The complainant no.1 in his evidence, has proved certain documents. Exhibit-1 is the prescription dated 18.01.1998 given by the opposite party no.1.
She has prescribed injection i.e. Taxin (1gm.)2, Metrogyle-3 and Dicloral. Although the name of the patient does not find place in it, we are inclined to hold that it was meant for the deceased which fact is corroborated by her own prescription on the ticket for outdoor patient. In Exhibit-2 given by her (opposite party no.1), there was clear mention that MTP was done on 18.01.1998 and on 19.01.1998 she complained pain in abdomen. The name of the deceased (nick name Rasmita) finds place in it. For the sake of convenience, we extract hereunder;
A Ne, Lnspl, P2Z2 H/o. MTP on 18.1.98.
C/o. Pain Abdomen o/E- Pallort, P/v- U+Rv, Ns, F.M. Fx fuel, Os closed.
(1) Rest (2) Inj. diclone 1amp She also prescribed certain medicines on 20.01.1998 (Exhibit-3). Exhibit-4 is the certificate saying that the deceased was bleeding as per the bed-head ticket on 19.01.1998.
The specialist opposite party no.2 has given discharge certificate dated 30.01.1998 (Exhibit-5). It has been mentioned therein that the deceased was suffering from intestinal perfection due to MTP and was treated in O&G ward from 20.01.1998 to 23.01.1998 vide Regd. No.6440 dated 20.01.1998. Exhibit-6 is the letter written by the deceased from S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 31.03.1998. It was addressed to her sister Sadhana, wherein she expressed that she would not survive and it all happened due to the washing of uterus by the opposite party no.1. At this stage, it is relevant to refer again the version of the opposite party no.2. He has stated that the deceased was referred to the surgery ward on 23.01.1998. The x-ray report revealed intestine and uterus perforation and the deceased was operated upon on 23.01.1998 by him.
After opening of abdomen, he found that the intestine and uterus were found perforated and the abdomen was filled with faecal matter and pus due to its septic condition.
From the aforesaid, we have no hesitation to hold that it was the opposite party no.1 who terminated the pregnancy of the deceased in her residential clinic on 18.01.1998 and because of negligence in the treatment, there was intestine and uterus perforation and the abdomen was filled with faecal matter and push necessitating surgical operation which was conducted by the opposite party no.2. The denial of opposite party no.1 to have conducted MTP is rejected. She has not come forward to say that she attended the deceased with due care, skill and diligence. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that she was negligent in terminating the pregnancy which amounts to deficiency in service.
7. Materials available on record do not suggest that the opposite party no.2 is guilty of negligence. Considering his version and relevant papers, we are inclined to hold that because the deceased had already intestine and uterus perforation, she had to be immediately operated upon on 23.01.1998 by the opposite party no.2.
8. The next question is the quantum of compensation. The deceased was aged about 29 years. On her death, the complainant no.1 has lost his life partner.
Complainant nos.2 and 3, who are their minor children are deprived of the motherly love and affection. The salary certificate granted by the B.D.O., Phulbani shows that she was drawing rupees 4,826/- per month as remuneration.
In sub-para 2 of paragraph 13 of the complaint, the complainant no.1 has laid a claim of rupees 5,00,000/- towards remuneration, rupees 3,00,000/- for maintenance of two daughters, rupees 2,00,000/- for suffering, harassment etc. and rupees 62,935/- towards medical expenses.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we grant a consolidated amount of rupees 9,00,000/- (nine lakhs)as damages in favour of the complainants which shall be paid by the opposite party no.1 by 30.01.2008, failing which it shall carry interest @9% per annum from 10.04.1998 (date of death of the deceased).
9. The complaint is allowed with cost assessed at rupees 10,000/- (ten thousand) which shall be paid by the opposite party no.1 within the time schedule indicated above.