State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
J.V.Baskaran,Chennai-600004. vs The Chairman,M/S. Madurai Sivakasi ... on 5 September, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
C.C.No.34/2015
Date of complaint filed : 04.09.2015
Date of orders pronounced : 05.09.2022
1. J.V.Baskaran,
S/o Mr.J.S.Vasudevan,
No.37/54, Paripoorana Vinayakar Koil Street,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. 1st Complainant
2. Master J.B.Bharadwajan, (Minor),
S/o Mr.J.V.Baskaran,
No.37/54, Paripoorana Vinayakar Koil Street,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. 2nd Complainant
3. Master J.B.Sastivikas, (Minor),
S/o Mr.J.V.Baskaran,
No.37/54, Paripoorana Vinayakar Koil Street,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. 3rd Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/s.Madurai Sivakasi Nadar Uravinmurai Hospital,
Represented by its Chairman,
Dr.Kaniarasu,
No.37, Chithiraikara Street,
Madurai - 625 001. 1st Opposite Party
2. Dr.Dhanalakshmi,
Medical Officer,
M/s.Madurai Sivakasi Nadar Uravinmurai Hospital,
No.37, Chithiraikara Street,
Madurai - 625 001 2nd Opposite Party
Counsel for Complainants : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite Parties-1&2 : Mr.R.Ramasamy, Advocate.
2
This complaint coming before me for final hearing on 16.08.2022 and upon
perusing the material records this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a claim of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
2. The complainant case :
The first complainant is the father and second and third complainants' are his young children. In the month of December 2012 the first complainant's wife Tmt.Jayanthi was confirmed pregnancy. She underwent periodical check-ups with Dr.Manonmani at Mylapore Chennai. Since Mrs.Jayanhti parents at Madurai she had periodical check-ups in the first opposite party's hospital too. Subsequently, admitted in the first opposite party hospital for delivery on 07.09.2013. at 9.00 A.M. and about at 12.26 hours she delivered a male baby, and she was normal for some time.. Then she was shifted from labour ward to General ward. But soon after, she got pain in the stomach and it got aggravated from time to time. , Blood oozing out continuously and become unstoppable. This seriousness was at once reported to the doctors. But, they did not attend her immediately and give proper medicines or care. Only after two hours, doctors attended her and advised to take her to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. She was immediately taken out by ambulance and admitted at Government Rajaji Hospital. Inspite of, treatment given to her she died around 4.20 P.M. The premature death was caused because of the carelessness and medical 3 negligence committed by the opposite party hospital and the medical officer the second opposite party. They did not provide adequate care . An enquiry was conducted about the death and it was clearly found that only because of negligent of the Hospital, Mrs.Jayanthi was died. Since, the complainant spend huge amount in treating his wife and he lost his wife and was forced to take care his two young children, he claimed Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
3. The opposite parties failed to file their written version and they were set ex- parte.
4. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to Ex.A9 are marked on the side of the complainant and also filed written arguments. This Commission perused the entire materials on record.
5. Now the points for consideration are:
1. Whether the doctors are negligent in treating the patient?
2. If so, what is the quantum to be awarded?
Point-1&2: As stated earlier, the first complainant's wife was admitted in the first opposite party hospital and an amount of Rs.5000/- was paid by the complainant's side which is proved by Ex.A1. ExA2 is the discharge summary from which it is proved to the Commission that the patient was admitted on 07.09.2013 at 11.00 A.M. and she delivered a male child by 12.26 A.M. Though, the delivery was normal the complainant alleged that after the patient was shifted to the General Ward, she experienced severe pain in abdomen and blood was oozing out that was unstoppable. It was alleged by the complainant that the patient attenders immediately brought to the notice of the doctors about this serious complication but 4 the doctors did not respond to her need in time. This fact was not controverted by the opposite parties by filing written version. Apart from that, it is also evidenced from Ex.A2 that she was referred to Government Hospital around 3.30 P.M. The patient admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital as seen from Ex.A4 Postmortem Certificate. From Ex.A4 it is proved that Mrs.Jayanthi was died because of "SHOCK AND POST PARTUM HAEMORRHAGE DUE TO ATONICITY OF UTERUS". With regard to such kind of PPH an enquiry is conducted by Medical Officials and it was presided over by the Collector. The above said Questionnaire for Investigation of Maternal Death that is Verbal Autopsy is marked as Ex.A8. We perused the Ex.A8 and it is Minutes Details.
In Model-III it was noted as follows Column: 13.2 : Whether the mother had problem answer - Yes.
Column: 13.3: The date and time of onset of the problems answer - starts by 3.00 P.M. Column: 13.4: The nature of problem is answer -PPH.
Column: 13.5: The problem was not detected at the early stage. And the problem was detected only by family members in, Column: 15.4: Lack of skill in examination/delivery answer - to certain extent.
Column: 15.5: Delay in detecting the problem
Answer - to certain extent
Column: 15.7: Only when the complication became serious mother
informed
and answer- Strong Association.
5
6. Apart from all those things from the minutes it is found that, the Hospital Authority failed to produce concerned doctor who attended the delivery. They have stated that the where about of the Medical Officers is not known ...........It is further notified that the Medical Officers from the first opposite party hospital informed the details of treatment provided and since blood transfusions facilities are not available with the first opposite party hospital for blood transfusions and better management the mother was refer to Government Rajaji Hospital. The report further discloses the age of the mother was 41 and she was at high risk for a normal delivery.
7. When analyzing all those factors it is revealed to us that at the age of 41 Mrs.Jayanthi was admitted for her second delivery in the first opposite party hospital and after this incident the duty doctor who attended the delivery has gone from the hospital and her where about were not known to the Hospital Authorities. Moreover, life saving mechanism such as blood transfusions and emergency care equipments were not available in the first opposite party hospital. Having known about the age and the high risk factor of delivery, the hospital management took the risk and unable to meet the emergency since the hospital was not provided with life saving mechanism.
In. Rajavadivelu. Vs. Janamma Hodpital The National Commission held as follows:
"What constitutes medical negligence is now well settled through a number of judgments of this Commission as also of the Honble Supreme Court of India. One of the principles to test medical negligence is whether a doctor exercised a reasonable degree of care and caution in treating a patient [Supreme Court Case Indian 6 Medical Association -Vs- V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651. Applying this principle in the instant case, medical negligence and deficiency in service is established because the Respondents conducted a major surgery under general anaesthesia without taking due care and caution to ensure that critical life-saving equipments like the ventilator were available in case of post-operative complications, which can occur following major surgery."
So failure to have life saving equipments and go for a surgery is certainly amounts to medical negligence. Even failure to anticipate such exigencies also amounts to medical negligence. Similarly The Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Smt. Savita Garg .Vs. The Director, National heart Institute, IV (2004) CPJ 40 (SC) held "Once an allegation is made that the patient was admitted in a particular hospital and evidence is produced to satisfy that he died because of lack of proper care and negligence, then the burden lies on the hospital to justify that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor or hospital. Therefore, in any case, the hospital is in a better position to disclose what care was taken or what medicine was administered to the patient. It is the duty of the hospital 7 to satisfy that there was no lack of care or diligence. The hospitals are institutions, people expect better and efficient service, if the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors, being employed on job basis or employed on contract basis, it is the hospital which has to justify and not impleading a particular doctor will not absolve the hospital of its responsibilities."
From the above, it is clear that the hospital cannot wash its hands off from the loss and injury suffered by the patient even if the negligence is only of the consultant doctor.
8. As per the above Judgements, we have no hesitation to say that the hospital and the duty doctor were very careless in treating the patient and knowing fully well about her age, high risk factor, they allowed her to admit in their hospital for delivery and they even did not have any facility for blood transfusions. So, the hospital and its doctors are committed medical negligence for which they have to compensate the complainants. The first complainant lost her wife, he has to look after his two children without the help of natural mother's love and affections. We understand the trauma suffered by the first complainant to lose his wife at a very early stage.
9. Considering all these facts, we inclined to award of Rs.10,00,000/- towards total compensation for mental agony, loss of estate and damages. This amount carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its payment. So we partly allowed the complaint, and awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with cost of Rs.5000/- and answered the points accordingly. 8
10. In the result,
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainants.
4. All the above amounts are to be paid within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx
S.KARUPPIAH, N. RAJASEKAR,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
ANNEXURE
List of documents filed on the side of the complainant Ex.A1 14.09.2013 Medical Bill Ex.A2 07.09.2013 Discharge summary Ex.A3 08.09.2013 Burial Receipts Ex.A4 08.09.2013 Post Mortem Report Ex.A5 27.09.2013 Death Certificate of Mrs.Jayanthi Ex.A6 31.12.2013 Legal Heir Certificate Ex.A7 07.09.2013 FIR in Crime No.799 of 2013 Ex.A8 02.12.2014 Minutes of Verbal atrocity meeting of Maternal death by the District Collector, Madurai.
Ex.A9 29.08.2015 Legal Notice.
9
List of documents filed on the side of opposite parties
-Nil-
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 24th day of August 2022.
Sd/-xxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx
S.KARUPPIAH, N. RAJASEKAR,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
10
Corrected