National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Razzak Abdul Kadher vs Dr. Shobana Sukumar & Anr. on 7 May, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2002 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 07/01/2010 in Appeal No. 391/2003 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. RAZZAK ABDUL KADHER 4-2-18, Muslim Middle Street, Thiruppathur Sivanagna Tamil Nadu ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. SHOBANA SUKUMAR & ANR. Lakshmi Nursing Home, Thiruppathur Sivaganga Tamil Nadu 2. DR. SHYAMSUNDARI Lakshmi Nursing Home, Thirupatur Sivaganga Tamil Nadu ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Priya Aristotle, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr. (Mr.) B. Cheran, Advocate Dated : 07 May 2015 ORDER PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The facts in the complaint are that the complainant's wife, Mrs. Paritha Begum (here-in-after referred to as the 'patient') was admitted to Lakshmi Nursing Home, Thiruppathur, (TN) of Dr. Shobana Sukukar, OP 1, on 12.11.1999. It was her third delivery. The OP, for a precautionary measure, asked the relatives to donate blood. She was transfused two units of blood, but all of a sudden, at about 3.00 p.m. the OP directed the complainant and his relatives to take the patient to Meenakshi Mission Hospital at Madurai (here-in-after referred as 'MMH') due to uncontrollable bleeding. Therefore, the complainant took her with a drip on a stretcher and admitted her at MMH at 4.00 p.m. but she was declared dead, at 7.00 p.m.
2. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed by its order dated 5.3.2003 and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
3. Aggrieved by this order of District Forum, Sivagangai, the OP approached the State Commission, Chennai, through first appeal, which was allowed. Hence, the complainant filed this revision petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OP hospital had no facility for emergency treatment.. The OP could not control the bleeding. The OP did not take the patient to the MMH Hospital by ambulance. The OP did not produce the medical record while referring to MMH. Therefore, the OP was deficient on several counts and should be liable for medical negligence. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that it was not a standard of practice. There was no proper care or treatment to his wife. The OP did not furnish the discharge summary, case-sheet. The medical records are concocted. The blood was not provided at proper time. It was given at 2.10 p.m. The OPs were aware that the baby had died at 10.00 a.m. when USG was performed, but they took her to delivery at 12.30 p.m. Hence, OP has not exercised due care and caution. The patient developed DIC due to transfusion of 3 bottles of blood, within half an hour. The patient was very young aged about 25 years, who left behind, two children. The OP failed to conduct resuscitation, which would have saved the life of his wife.
5. Learned counsel for OP argued that the patient had history of labour pain at 5.00 am. and she came to the hospital at 10.00 a.m. which was too late. They have investigated for BTCT and other lab investigations. The USG performed on 10.25 a.m. reveals Foetal movement absent, Foetal heart activities absent. The patient's blood was A+ ve. Therefore, the OPs have kept 3 bottles of O +ve blood cross match. The OP noticed bleeding at 1.30 p.m. i.e. after delivery of dead fetus. The uterus was contract. He further submits that inquiry report was in favour of the OP. Regarding discharge summary, he brought out attention towards the reference letter dated 12.11.1999, which was given by OP, is reproduced as under:
"To, The Casualty Medical Officer, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai Respected madam, Herewith referring Mrs. Faritha Begam, a case of accidental haemorrhage grade, III, with disseminated intravascular coagulation. With renal failure for admission and further line of management, delivered by labour natural at 2.04 pm, deadborn baby. Patient developed profuse bleeding pervagina and haematuria Summary of treatment given.
2 bottles of 'O' POSITIVE blood 1 bottle of 'A' POSITIVE blood 1 unit of Fresh Forzen Plasma (350 ml) Injection, Carboprost 1 ampoule intramuscularly 2 bottles of ringerlactate with 4 ampoules of Pitocin in each bottle.
As the patient is having profuse bleeding, per vagina, she is referred for further line of management."
6. Therefore, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that it was an emergency case of accidental, anti-partem hemorrhage (APH). After that, the OP took proper steps. Hence, there was no negligence. He further submitted that it was a case of abruption placenta, a rare obstructive problem. The OP has transfused one bottle of FFP to combat DIC.
7. We have perused the medical records. Due to dead fetus and abruption placenta, the patient suffered hemorrhage, which subsequently led to DIC. OP has tired its level best to avoid hemorrhage shock. The OP administered 3-4 units of blood. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the OP acted as per standard of practice, during emergency situation, hence, there was no negligence. The counsel relied upon medical literature from High Risk Pregnancy 3rd Edition (Saunders) and one judgment of this Commission in Smt. Sajini, Major vs. Chaya Nursing Home & Ors. 2012 (1) CPR 111 NC.
8. Therefore, on the basis of the forgoing discussion, we affirm the view as taken by State Commission. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER