National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Sajini vs Chaya Nursing Home & Ors. on 4 November, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 07.10.2005 in Complaint No.9 of 1999 of the State Commission, Karnataka) Smt. Sajini, Major, Aged 31 years, W/o Sri K.S. Prakash, No.47, I.T.I. Layout, , Benson Town, Bangalore- 560046, Karnataka, Rep. by her husband .Appellant Versus 1. Chaya Nursing Home 17th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560003, Karnataka, Represented by its Proprietor and Administrator, Dr. Nadig 2. Dr. Uma Shashi Bhat, Gynecologist, Chaya Nursing Home, 17th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560003, Karnataka 3. Dr. Sunily Padmanabhan, Chaya Nursing Home, 17th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560003, Karnataka .........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. S.N. Bhat , Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivastva, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 04-11-2011 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. The appellant, Mrs. Sajini, was the complainant before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a matter arising from the stillbirth of her child in OP-1/ Chaya Nursing Home. Her complaint has been dismissed by the State Commission, which held that the allegation of negligence is not proved.
2. The appeal is filed with a delay of 39 days which, considering the explanation, has been condoned. Soon after institution of this appeal, the appellant/complainant herself passed away on 22.5.2006. Therefore, her husband, Mr. K. S. Prakash has been allowed to substitute her in these proceedings, as her legal heir. This has been done, after considering and disallowing the objections of the OPs. OP-2/Dr. Uma Shashi Bhat, has also passed away, during the pendency of this appeal. The appeal has therefore, been allowed to abate to the extent of OP-2.
3. The case of the deceased complainant, before the State Commission, was that on 31.8.1994, she was admitted to OP-1 nursing home, when she had felt abdominal pain. On examination, it was found that the foetal heartbeat was not audible. After belly scan it was confirmed that the baby had died in the womb. The request of her husband to immediately remove the dead foetus through caesarian section was not considered. The dead foetus came out after two hours. It was followed by heavy bleeding. She had to be given several bottles of blood. As her condition worsened, her husband was advised to take her to a better hospital. Late in the evening on the same day, she was shifted to Mallige Nursing Home. Seven months later she developed hepatitis B which was, it is alleged, caused by transfusion of untested blood at OP-2 Nursing Home. She was diagnosed to be suffering from Hans Syndrome which affected her speech and nervous control, leading to vegetable like state of existence. According to the complainant, had OP-2 diagnosed her condition in the initial stage itself, she would not have been spared the suffering and permanent disability.
4. The State Commission arrived at the following conclusions a.
The evidence of Mr. Prakash, husband of the complainant, does not support the allegations against the OPs.
b.
Dr. Balanagamma, Gynecologist was examined as an expert for the complainant. Due to contradictions between her recorded evidence and statements in her cross-examination, her evidence cannot be safely relied upon.
c.
The suggestion of the complainants husband that hepatitis was caused by blood transfusion cannot be accepted as the system of blood matching by the blood bank is well established.
d.
Contentions of the OPs in their pleadings and evidence, have accounted for all the omissions pointed out by the complainant and the reasons given by them appear to be just and proper.
5. We have perused the records and heard counsels for the two parties. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the question in this case is not whether proper treatment was given but whether it was given promptly enough. In this behalf, he referred to the cross-examination of Dr D R Nadig, Administrator of the Nursing Home. According to it, on 31.8.1994 the patient had arrived at 7 AM and was attended to by the duty nurse in the Labour Room and the treatment started at 11.30 AM. The same affidavit also shows that the deponent had no personal knowledge and was deposing on the basis of a document prepared by the receptionist. The counsel did not explain how the receptionist could record the time of treatment, which is a matter within the knowledge of only the doctors or para-medical staff, attending on the patient. As per the affidavit evidence of OP-3, when she reached the nursing home at 9 AM, the patient was already in the scanning room and had been examined.
6. The complaint petition, as well as the affidavit of the husband of the complainant, both show that the abdominal pain started at about 6 AM on the 31st and she was immediately brought to the nursing home. But, neither gives the time of arrival. Both accept that on arrival, the complainant was examined by the duty nurse in the Labour Ward who found that the heartbeat of the child was not audible. She informed OP-3 telephonically about it. 7. In his cross examination by OPs counsel, the husband of the complainant accepts that he reached the nursing home with the patient at about 7 to 7.30 AM. The doctor/OP-3 arrived at 9 AM. It is therefore clear that the patient was attended to soon after arrival and without waiting for arrival of the doctor. We therefore, reject the argument of the counsel that there was lack of timely attention to the patient.
8. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that failure of the OPs to remove the dead foetus immediately led to heavy bleeding and other complications. Responding to it, the counsel for the respondent pointed out that the dead foetus came out (without any surgery) by 11-11.15 AM. There was neither any medical urgency nor long retention in the womb, which could justify immediate caesarian section to remove the dead foetus. He also referred to the medical literature to show that 90% of the patients in such cases will go into spontaneous labour within four weeks. (Epitomes- Obstetrica and Gynecology, 298-April 1997-126-4). In the present case the dead fetus came out within a few hours of arrival at OP nursing home.
9. Before the State Commission, Dr. N. Balagangamma was examined on behalf of the complainant as the expert witness. She has based her evidence on the records. According to her, in case of a dead foetus, normal delivery is the expected treatment. Her testimony shows that in this case delivery was induced by medicines and the dead feotus was normally expelled. She has also opined that it was a case of concealed Anti Partum Hemorrhage(APH) though in the record there is no mention of the symptom of APH. According to the witness The treatment given was appropriate to control bleeding. The Sheehans syndrome occurred due to PPH. Looking to the severe anemia 5 bottles of blood and other medicines were given to the patient as per the records. The treatment is appropriate to control anemia after delivery.
10. The above testimony of the main witness of the complainant is enough to show that the treatment was proper and there was no negligence. The State Commission has pointed out certain contradictions in the testimony of this witness, vis--vis her cross-examination. However, the contradictions notwithstanding, testimony of this witness certainly does not support the case of the complainant.
11. In view of the details examined above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is therefore, dismissed and the order of the State Commission confirmed. No orders as to costs.
.
(V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-