State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Administrative Incharge ... vs N. Manjunathan Moranahalli Post ... on 29 August, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru J. JAYARAM, M.A.,M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt. VASUGI RAMANAN MEMBER II F.A.NO.101/2008 AND F.A.NO.111/2008 (Against order in CC.NO.48/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Krishnagiri) DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2011 F.A.NO.101/2008 Administrative Incharge (Doctor) M/s. Anand, Abdul & Vinodh Meerabai Hospital Counsel for Hosur Appellant/ 2nd Opposite party Vs.
1. N. Manjunathan Moranahalli Post Sayeedin Mohammed Kaveripattinam Counsel for Krishnagiri District Respondent/ Complainant
2. The Administrative Incharge Anantha Ashram Hospital Mathagiri (2nd and 3rd Respondent served
3. Dr. Vijayalakshmi absent) Devaki Naic Hospital Opposite Aeri Theru, Hosur
4. Administrative Incharge Manipal Hospital M/s. N.L. Rajah 98, Rustom Bagh Counsel for 4th Respondent Airport Road, Bangalore Respondents/ 3rd & 4th Opposite parties F.A.NO.111/2008 Dr. Vijayalakshmi M/s. Anand, Abdul & Vinodh Devaki Naic Hospital Opposite Counsel for Aeri Theru, Hosur Appellant/ 4th Opposite party Vs.
1. N. Manjunathan Moranahalli Post Sayeedin Mohammed Kaveripattinam Counsel for Krishnagiri District Respondent/ Complainant
2. The Administrative Incharge Anantha Ashram Hospital Mathagiri (2nd and 3rd Respondent served
3. Administrative Incharge (Doctor) absent) Meerabai Hospital Hosur
4. Administrative Incharge Manipal Hospital M/s. N.L. Rajah 98, Rustom Bagh Counsel for 4th Respondent Airport Road, Bangalore Respondents/ 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties for compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appeal is preferred by the 2nd and 4th opposite parties separately, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.11.2007 in OP.No.48/2004.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 29.8.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties 2 and 4, in OP.No.48/2004 on the file of District Forum Krishnagiri, are the appellants in 111/2008 and 101/2008 respectively.
2. The parties are referred in this order as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The facts necessary for reaching the just conclusion, in brief:
The complainant admitted his wife Subha, hereinafter called patient, for delivery in the 1st opposite party hospital on 27.3.2004, at about 5.00 am since she was previously examined taking various tests, in the hospital on 14.3.2004. The 1st opposite party, though retained the patient from 5.00 a,m to 10.30 am, all of a sudden informing that the baby in the womb is having breathing problem, without analyzing the reason, contacting the 2nd opposite party, requested the complainant to take the patient to the 2nd opposite party hospital, where she was admitted at about 11.00 a.m, and they have informed the baby already died. The complainant having no other option, except to save the mother, consented for surgery, and accordingly surgery was performed between 11.30 to 12.00 p.m, not informing anything, requesting the complainant, to bring blood from Bangalore A+, though they have produced two persons, having A+ blood. When the complainant was away to purchase blood, the relatives were informed to take patient to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, instead of asking them to take the patient to St. Johns Hospital, that too, not providing even a stretcher to take the patient from the room to ambulance.
4. The patient was taken to Manipal Hospital, admitted at 4.10 p.m, were 7 bottles of blood was transfused, though the complainant had provided 10 bottles of blood. From the treatment given at Manipal, it is clear that the patient died due to shortage of blood or non-transfusion. Thus the 1st opposite party committed negligence, in moving the patient to the second opposite party, to have delivery, despite labour problem was reported at 5. a.m and the 2nd opposite party had committed deficiency in performing surgery, without basic facilities and infrastructure, thereby they have caused mental agony, and suffering, since the complainant lost his wife, at the early age. The non-transfusion of blood, when the persons were provided, not taking blood from them, should be construed as deficiency in service. Because of the death of the wife, the complainant is unable to attend the other work and if she had been alive, being the qualified person for teaching, would have joined in the service, earned, which are all deprived.
For these negligence, and deficiency, as well as for mental agony, and fro the death of the wife, the complainant is entitled to Rs.19,00,000/-, and Rs.1000/- as cost. Hence the case.
4. The 1st opposite party admitting that the complainants wife was admitted in hospital on 27.3.2004 at 5.30 a.m, resisted the case, contending that the patient developed some complication, indicating no possibility for normal delivery, and that is why they have requested the complainant to take the patient to Meera Nursing home, informing the 4th opposite party, in which there was no negligence or deficiency of service, and that when there was indication of complication, she was immediately sent to 2nd opposite party hospital, and they being only formal party, since not committed any negligence, the case against them should be dismissed.
5. The 2nd opposite party questioning the non-explanation available for detaining the patient in the 1st opposite party hospital from 5.00 a.m to 11.00 a.m, admitting that at request of the 4th opposite party, the patient was admitted in the hospital, that on examination it was noticed fetus death, and therefore emergency surgery was performed, adopting all procedure, thereby the dead fetus was extracted by 11.45 a.m, then administering medicine for uterine contraction, thereafter taken by the staff to the ward. The patient was conscious during surgery, and during the surgery process none is allowed, and there was no bleeding till 1.30 p.m., When bleeding started at 1.30, medicines were administered, stopping the bleeding, but recurring again at 2.00 p.m, at that time it was suspected that the patient is having PPH, with coagulation failure due to amniotic fluid embolism, resulting torrential bleeding, after 1 hours of delivery. Therefore as advised by the 4th opposite party, informing the relatives of the patient, she was removed, advised to take Bangalore, Manipal hospital. As far as this opposite party is concerned, they have provided only the facilities for operation by Dr.Vijayalakshmi, and nothing more, and in providing the facilities, there was no deficiency at all.
6. Manjunathan, the husband of the complainant, brought two persons for donating blood, and he was instructed to take donor to Bangalore to give blood, since the hospital cannot take the blood from the donor and transfused the same to the patient directly. The surgery was performed unavoidably, and there was no negligence or deficiency of service. The other averments are intentionally made, denied as false, and therefore they cannot be held responsible for the death of the patient, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. The 3rd opposite party would contend in the written version, that the patient was brought to their casualty ward, with a complaint of asystole cardiac arrest. This opposite party explaining the conditions and the poor progress of the patient, treated the patient including transfusing blood, which failed to improve the condition, which was already deteriorating, resulting occurring of death at 9.30 pm, on 27.3.2004, for which they are not responsible, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. The 4th opposite party more or less, reiterating the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party, further pleaded that she only sincerely tried her best to save the patient life, within the short time given to her and because of the difficulty and emergency situation, she was unable to stop the bleeding, which had happened due to coagulation failure, leading to DIC, causing unfortunate development, which is very rare, for that she cannot be held responsible, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. The District Forum based upon the facts, as well as going through the documents, felt the opposite parties 1 and 3, have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service, or in other words, the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency against them. In this view, the complaint was dismissed, as far as the opposite parties 1 and 3 are concerned, which is not challenged by the complainant.
10. The materials and its evaluation revealed to the wisdom of the District Forum, that the 2nd and 4th opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, in the sense they have commenced the surgery without reserving blood, when problem had arisen, failed to form a team of doctors, to take expert opinion, that their failure to arrest the bleeding and sending the patient to Bangalore should be construed as deficiency in service, proceeded by negligent surgery, since the 4th opposite party has taken calculated risk, in the performance of surgery, as well as in administering of the medicine, which failed to arrest the blood. Thus concluding though the complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation, very generously the District Forum directed the opposite parties 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs individually and jointly with cost of Rs.1000/-, with interest also as per order dt.30.11.2007, which is challenged, by the opposite parties 2 and 4, independently as said above.
11. The complainants wife by name Subha- the patient, was originally admitted for delivery with labour pain, in the 1st opposite party hospital Mathirigi on 27.3.2004 at 5.00 a.m., where she was treated or attended upto 10.30 a.m. Thus for anticipated delivery, having labour pain, the patient was detained in the hospital of the 1st opposite party, for minimum 5 hours, thereafter unable to solve the problem, the 1st opposite party contacted the 2nd opposite party, as well as the gynecologist -4th opposite party, for better treatment/ further treatment.
Therefore the patient was shifted from 1st opposite party hospital to the 2nd opposite party hospital at 11.00 a.m. The 1st opposite party suspecting complication of fetal distress, sent the patient with a referral letter, that LSCS is required. The 4th opposite party contacted the 2nd opposite party, instructed them, to prepare the case for LSCS, including summoning of anesthetist. When the 4th opposite party examined the patient, she had noticed the patient was exhausted, dehydrated, tired due to active labour pain from early morning. She has also further noticed, as recorded in the case sheet, not disputed, term size, head lower pole, bandls ring present, including absence of fetal heart sound, and further pelvic examination revealed the pelvic bones are narrow with less space for the baby to deliver. Further she had noticed that the baby was not in a favourable position for normal delivery.
Under the above said circumstances, being a qualified gynecologist, the 4th opposite party, in her wisdom and judgement, decided to go for LSCS, if not anticipating obstructive labour with threatened rupture, she has also informed the condition of the mother, as well as the fetal death, to the husband of the patient, as well as her relatives.
12. The 4th opposite party, with the permission and consent of the complainants husband, took the patient to the operation theater, after completing the preliminary investigation, including blood test, and the content of hemoglobin in the blood, which was sufficient to proceed with the surgery. As a safe measure, as a prudent gynecologist, even admittedly we can say, since it is in way admitted in the complaint itself, that she requested the relatives of the patient, to bring two persons, having A+ blood group, in order to take them to Bangalore to the blood bank, for the purpose of taking blood. It is an admitted fact, that there was no blood bank in Hosur, and as pleaded not under shadow, in the Government hospital this blood group was not available.
Here itself, it can be said, it is not the case of the complainant, blood was available elsewhere in Hosur.
Having satisfied with the hemoglobin content was sufficient to proceed with the surgery, failing which there may be a possibility of tear of uterus and rupture, the 4th opposite party performed LSCS, successfully also. As seen from the complaint, the LSCS performed by the 4th opposite party, in the hospital of the 2nd opposite party, was not questioned or not faulted, and no negligence was alleged in the process of surgery, or in the steps taken in performing the surgery or medicine administered prior and after surgery, and the only fault alleged is sufficient blood was to transfused and without storing the blood, major surgery was undertaken, without infrastructure, that should be construed as deficiency.
13. After LSCS, the patient was brought to the postoperative ward, at about 12.45 p.m, where it was noticed at about 1.30 p.m, bleeding, indicating some complication, which was controlled by administering Pitocin intravenous, Methargin injection, Prostradin injunction, which yielded result temporarily, controlling the blood. Anticipating this kind of problem, the complainant was sent to Bangalore to bring the required blood, not in dispute. After the departure of the complainant to Bangalore, once again bleeding started, and despite Pitocin trip on flow, bleeding could not be stopped, thereby striking the mind of the 4th opposite party, that the patient is landing with postportem haemorrhage with coagulation failure, despite her effort, because of the amniotic fluid mix up with the mothers blood, as well as due to prolonged severe labour pain from 5 am to 10 am, not attended by the 1st opposite party, with all caution and care, as required, there was torrential bleeding, causing DIC, indicating controlling the bleeding was remote. Admittedly, at this kind of stage, protocol requires to control the situation, to administer blood products, like placing frozen plasma, plateless in much quantities, that too taking the patient in ICU with ventilator. These facilities are not available in the ordinary hospital viz. the 2nd opposite party in Hosur. Thus, as a prudent doctor, expecting further complication, in order to prevent, and save the patient also, if possible, with IV fluid and other facilities, the patient was sent to Manipal Hospital Bangalore on ambulance, at 2.30 p.m or so, and the patient was in the hospital of the 2nd opposite party, under the care and treatment for 3 hours i.e., from 11.00 am, as seen from records produced by the 4th opposite party. Because of the asystole, patient did not respond to cardiac massage and she was declared dead at 9.30 pm on the same day, and the cause of death was recorded as Post Partum Haemorrhage, Hypovolemia/ hemorrhagic shock at 3rd opposite party. Thus the life of the patient, who was alright at about 5.00 a.m on 27.3.2004, came to an end by 9.30 p.m.
14. Naturally the husband, who had anticipated a heir, got aggrieved, further the patient being a qualified person for teaching, had received intimation letter also for counseling, for appointment. By the sudden demise of the wife, the complainant accusing all the opposite parties, as if they have committed negligence, deficiency, after issuing a notice, filed the consumer complaint, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, plus cost of Rs.1000/- totaling Rs.20,01,000/- and thereafter realizing that, the District Forum cannot have jurisdiction, graciously reduced the compensation to Rs.19,01,000/-, in which attempt he succeeded in getting Rs.15 lakhs, in the hands of the District Forum, against the opposite parties 2 and 4 alone. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, against opposite parties 1 and 3, the complainant has not preferred any appeal, and therefore the finding as far as the opposite parties 1 and 3 are concerned, had reached finality. Though we find some negligence and deficiency on the part of the 1st opposite party, as rightly urged in the written version, and as seen from the records also, since the 1st opposite party has not properly attended the pregnant women, that too after developing labour pain for 5 hours, that should have caused further complication also. Fortunately for the 1st opposite party, they are relieved, and as far as the 3rd opposite party is concerned, they have not committed any deficiency, and the dismissal of the complaint, against them, cannot be faulted. Be it as it may, since there is no appeal against them.
15. The opposite parties 2 and 4, filed the appeals independently, urging that they have exercised their duty of care, in deciding whether to undertake the case of the patient, they have exercised reasonable decree of care, in deciding what treatment to be given to the patient, as per the established medical norms, and that they have exercised due care in the administration of the treatment, even as held by the Apex Court, but unfortunately the District Forum failed to take into account, and erroneously slapped an order, directing to pay compensation of Rs.150000/-, which is liable to be set aside.
16. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ complainant, that the opposite parties / appellant should have advised the patient to get treatment from the hospital, having adequate facilities, with the blood transfusion during surgery, which they failed that before commencing the surgery also, they failed to stock the necessary blood for transfusion, if occasion arises, that should be construed as deficiency, in addition accusing the 2nd opposite party, that they are conducting the nursing home, without basic infrastructure, that also should be taken as negligence, followed by deficiency in service, which were all considered by the District Forum, granting a proper order, not to be disturbed.
17. We have given our anxious thought, to the submission and to the admitted case and gone through the written submission submitted by all the parties, and meticulously scanned the case records also, which are not under challeng, coupled with the settled position of law, as well as reading the literature also, to some extent, regarding PPH, DIC and the result is District Forum has committed error, in affixing deficiency against the opposite parties 2 and 4, which requires to be erased, and we assign our reasons hereunder.
18. The patient had not taken treatment or prenatal checkup with the 2nd opposite party, or the 4th opposite party. As said above, the patient has not come directly to the 2nd opposite party, with consultation of the 4th opposite party. After distress, after lapse of 5 hours, from the date of admission, and labour pain, very cleverly, the 1st opposite party, anticipating problem, in order to wash their hands, sent the patient to the 2nd opposite party.
The 2nd opposite party, at the advise of the 4th opposite party, admitted in their hospital.
The 4th opposite party is a qualified gynecologist, is not under challenge. Our efforts by going through the pleadings, affidavit, resulted no accusation against them, regarding the manner of treatment, given to the patient or regarding the administration of drugs, except blood, and questioning infrastructure of the 2nd opposite party. To our understanding, there is no prescribed standard by the Government, for running a nursing home. A hospital, which is attending maternity, is not compulsorily required to maintain a blood bank, and without license to store the blood, which comes within the meaning of drug, no hospital can possess the blood, and no hospital can take the blood from the donor also. Therefore, for not storing the blood, it is the main accusation, and for not taking the blood from the available donor also, neither the 2nd opposite party, nor the 4th opposite party, can be brought under the clutches of negligence, or deficiency, that can be further seen from the rules and regulations, for maintaining a blood bank. Therefore, the accusation of the complainant repeatedly, that the opposite party had commenced surgery, without blood cannot be taken, per se as negligence or deficiency. In this context, we have to see, whether the LSCS taken by the 4th opposite party was justifiable.
19. The learned counsel for the complainant would contend, that when the hemoglobin level was below the standard, without stocking the blood, or procuring the blood, the 4th opposite party should not have proceeded with the surgery.
20. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that hemoglobin level was normal to withstand LSCS, and that is why, as a prudent doctor, taking decision, the 2nd opposite party commenced the surgery, which cannot be faulted. Ex.B6 is the case sheet maintained by the 2nd opposite party, for the treatment given to the patient, from 11 am on 27.3.2004 to 12.30 p.m on the same day. As seen from the investigations, hemoglobin level was 11.0 gms, which is the normal level for a pregnant women, as seen from the literature also, which says the normal hemoglobin values are, for adult 13.5- 17 g/dl. Female 12-15 gm/dl, pregnancy 11-12 g/dl, which is the case of the patient in this case, as seen from Ex.B6. Therefore, we are unable to find fault with the commencement of the LSCS, without procuring blood in this case. In this context, we have to see, on what condition the patient was brought to the hospital of the 2nd opposite party.
21. As seen from Ex.B1 referral letter by the 1st opposite party, to the 4th opposite party, having decided for LSCS, she was sent, and that is why it is said for emergency LSCS treatment-distress. In this letter though hemoglobin is given as 9.6 gm, but the test at the 2nd opposite party revealed 11, on that basis, considering the distress nature of the patient, they have made preparation for LSCS. The physical examination of the patient revealed, as recorded in Ex.B6, under the heading physical examination, the patient was restless, dehydrating, exhausted, uterus tends and tender, acting continuously, indicating absence of FHS also. In the 1st opposite party hospital, this distress was noticed, which was confirmed by the 4th opposite party, and as advised by the 4th opposite party, preparing the patient for emergency LSCS, obtaining consent, surgery was performed, and taken to post-operative ward, in which process, we find no deviation of the standard practice, to be followed, by any gynecologist. The averments in the complaint, as if there was no slopping in the hospital, and no stretcher was provided to take patient, are all imaginary, though there might not have been any slopping in the hospital, that has nothing to do in the taking of the patient in the stretcher from the operation theatre to post-operative ward, which is away 20 feet or so, as pleaded in the written version. In order to contract the uterus, they have administered medicine also.
The appellants, anticipating some problems, as a precautionary measure, advised the complainant, as well as his relatives to arrange for blood. It is also the case of the complainant, that he was requested to go to Bangalore to purchase blood, in addition arranging three donors for A+. Thus, admitting in paragraph 6 of the complaint, the complainant accused the opposite parties, as if they have failed to take the blood, from the donors, stating that they had no facilities. For taking blood from the donor, no extra facilities are required and taking blood from the donor directly is prohibited, unless a license was obtained for blood bank. Therefore, on the ground that there was no facility to take the blood, and store blood in the hospital viz. the 2nd opposite party, we cannot say that they have committed deficiency in service, or those facilities are not available, will amount to absence of infrastructure, per se, preventing from attending the delivery, or LSCS, as the case may be, and if at all, as a prudent doctor, they should have made an arrangement for procuring blood, which they did, as admitted by the complainant himself. Therefore, the LSCS performed by the 2nd opposite party, was in accordance with the prescribed medical procedure, cannot be faulted.
22. On the side of the complainant, no expert evidence was let in, to find fault, the procedure adopted by the opposite parties 2 and 4 or the failure on their part in administering the necessary drugs at appropriate time. It is also not possible to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in this case, since admittedly, the complainant was brought to the hospital of 2nd opposite party, with fetal distress, after 5 hours from the time of commencing of labour pain, in a critical condition. The doctors examining and noting the fetal death, have taken a decision to go for LSCS, failure to do so may cause rupture and tear to the uterus, which is not faulted, as negligent act. The consent obtained from the complainant also not questioned. Unfortunately at about 1.30 p.m, as recorded in the case sheet, as submitted in the written version also, there was a bout of vaginal bleeding. Immediately, as recorded in the case sheet itself, Pitocin was administered, which helps to expedite the normal contraction of spontaneous labour, and control postportem bleeding. Further, it is recorded in the case sheet itself, Metharjin injection was also given, but though there was some kind of control, not fully resulting, further bleeding at about 2 p.m., which was unable to be controlled, because of PPH, with coagulation failure, and the reason so stated in the case record, and the proof affidavit, are all not under challenge before us. Therefore, as a prudent doctor, we are constrained to say, that the 4th opposite party exercised proper care, caring the patient, not committing any negligence or deficiency, disowning the responsibility.
23. In the complaint, the complainant has accused the opposite parties 2 and 4, as if they have directed the relatives to take the patient to Manipal, though they have preferred St Johns hospital, which is nearer. The patient was in a critical condition, and the life was most precious.
Therefore, the doctor, thought it fit, a better equipped hospital, may have the chance to save the life, and in this way alone, giving referral letter, transfer records, the opposite parties 2 and 4 have advised the relatives of the patient to take the patient to Manipal hospital, Bangalore, in which we are unable to find any fault. Realizing that the complainant was sent to Banglore for blood, they have advised the complainant to go to Manipal hospital, Bangalore, with the procured blood, thereby showing awareness and diligence, that blood should reach the patient as early as possible, not shrieking the responsibility.
24. As seen from paragraph 9 of the complaint, the accusation was against the 1st opposite party mainly, and the 2nd accusation against the 2nd opposite party is without blood, surgery commenced, for which we have given our answers, based upon records. The absence of slop in the hospital, was not the cause for the postportem haemorrhage and the non-transfusion of the blood from the donor, to the patient is impossible, prohibited, that cannot be faulted.
25. As held by the Apex Court in Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka and Others in (2009) 6 SCC, affirming the decision of Jacob Mathew case, A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings; either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charges has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence. From the discussion narrated above, it is crystal clear, that the opposite parties did exercise with reasonable competence, since 4th opposite party had the skill to attend the delivery, and therefore we are constrained to hold that the complainant has not even discharged the initial burden to prove any medical negligence against the opposite parties 2 and 4, which was not properly analysed by the District Forum, whereas it has committed an error, in stating that the bleeding continued, should be construed as deficiency of service, on the part of the opposite party, without recording a finding, what kind of deficiency she had committed. A peculiar finding is recorded when the blood has not clot, the 4th opposite party should have formed a team of doctors, to manage the blood clot, but opted for discharge, leading to death, that should be construed as deficiency, in which observation, we find no logic. Hosur is not a big town, having many specialists, and it is not within the power of opposite parties 2 and 4 to form a team of specialists, within the short notice, when the patient was in their hospital only for 3 hours. The further conclusion of the District Forum, that the 4th opposite party has taken calculated risk, in the performance of surgery, without blood also, should be construed as negligence, is erroneous. The doctor is the best judge at the given circumstances, what to do considering the critical position of the pregnant lady, having in the abdomen a dead fetus, threatening rupture, tearing of uterus. Therefore, when the hemoglobin was normal, she performed LSCS, extracted the dead fetus, in which process there is no fault, even as recorded by the District Forum. This being the position, forgetting the PPH and DIC, which had occurred, which is a known complication, in the case of LSCS, in our considered opinion, unnecessarily the District Forum had slapped an unreasonable order, against opposite parties 3 and 4, directing them to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, which should be erased, for that, both the appeal should be allowed, being meritorious.
26. In the result, the appeals are allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.48/2004 dt.30.11.2007, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost throughout.
Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipts, made by way of mandatory deposits, to the appellants in both the appeals, duly discharged.
VASUGI RAMANAN J JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBERII JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Bench-1/Medical