State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kapoor Hospital vs Sukhwinder Kaur on 20 May, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1260 of 2006
Date of institution: 06.10.2006
Date of decision : 20.05.2011
1. Kapoor Hospital, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda
through its Head Incharge Shri R.S.Kapoor.
2. Surinder Kaur Bhalla wife of Dr.Rajinder Kapoor c/o Kapoor Hospital,
Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
.....Appellants
Versus
Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Buta Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh resident of village
Kotli Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa now resident of Bahmanwala wife of
Kulvir Singh son of Malkiat Singh resident of village Bahmanwala, Tehsil and
District Faridkot.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 30.08.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Puneet Sharma, Advocate for
Sh.Deepak Arora, Advocate
For the respondents : None
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The question to be determined in this appeal is whether the appellant No.2 (in short "the appellant") had committed medical negligence while effecting delivery of Sukhwinder Kaur respondent on 20.8.2005.
2. The version of Sukhwinder Kaur respondent was that she was pregnant. She came to her parental house in village Kotli Kalan for delivery purposes. She was got admitted by her parents in the appellant hospital where the respondent gave birth to a male child on 20.8.2005 at about 2.30 a.m. The delivery of the respondent was performed by appellant No.2 in the appellant hospital. First Appeal No.1260 of 2006 2
3. Appellant No.2 had received a sum of Rs.2600/- in cash as medical fee from the father of the respondent on 20.8.2005. The respondent was discharged on the same day i.e. on 20.8.2005 itself at about 6.00 p.m. stating that everything was normal. The respondent was taken to her parental house by her father in village Kotli Kalan.
4. It was further pleaded that appellant No.2 had not conducted the delivery properly. She had failed to remove the placenta from the stomach of the respondent after her delivery. As a result, there was bleeding. The respondent again visited the appellant hospital on 23.8.2005 and complained of bleeding. The respondent was admitted by appellant No.2 and the appellants administered two bottles of glucose and charged a sum of Rs.700/- from the respondent and she was discharged on 23.8.2005 at 4.00 p.m. Appellant No.2 also told the respondent that she would be alright.
5. It was further pleaded that the condition of the respondent did not improve. She was got admitted by her parents in Civil Hospital, Mansa where she was attended by Dr.Navjot Kaur. The respondent was medically treated and was discharged on 27.8.2005.
6. It was further pleaded that the condition of the respondent still deteriorated. She was again admitted in Civil Hospital, Mansa on 15.9.2005. The respondent was advised for ultrasound scanning which was got performed on 15.9.2005 from City Coloured Ultra Sound Centre, Mansa. After observing ultrasound report, the doctor of Civil Hospital, Mansa told the respondent that appellant No.2 had failed to remove Placenta from her stomach after delivery which was the cause of deterioration in the health of the respondent. Dr.Navjot Kaur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mansa removed the placenta from the stomach of the respondent and provided requisite medical treatment to her. She was also administered 5 bottles of blood in Civil Hospital, Mansa and only, thereafter, the condition of the respondent improved. First Appeal No.1260 of 2006 3
7. It was further pleaded that because of the medical negligence committed by the appellant, not only the respondent suffered pain and had become physical weak but she also had to spend a huge amount on her medical treatment. The father of the respondent had also suffered a huge loss as he could not cultivate his land because of his attention for seeking medical treatment of the respondent. The respondent had spent an amount of Rs.40,000/- for her medical treatment while her father had suffered the financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, the complaint for recovery of Rs.40,000/- as medical reimbursement, Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for the financial loss and on account of mental tension, agony and harassment. Costs were also prayed.
8. The appellants filed a joint written statement. It was admitted that the respondent was admitted in the appellant hospital on 20.8.2005 for delivery purposes. The delivery was conducted by appellant No.2 and the respondent had given birth to a son at about 2.30 a.m. and she was discharged on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. It was denied if the appellants had charged any money from the respondent or from her father. The medical services were rendered by the appellants purely on the basis of personal and family relations. Since it was a normal delivery and there was no complication, therefore, the respondent was discharged from the hospital after proper check up.
9. It was further pleaded that all the necessary precautions under the medical procedure were taken by the appellant while performing delivery on the respondent. There was neither any infection nor any complication. The appellant hospital was well equipped hospital and there were visiting doctors in case of emergency at the time of delivery. After the birth of the son to the respondent, proper cleaning of the uterus was done and complete placenta was removed. Appellant No.2 had prescribed requisite medicines post delivery. The respondent had not made any complaint.
10. It was further pleaded that in the morning of 23.8.2006, the respondent had rung up in the appellant hospital that she had problem of bleeding. First Appeal No.1260 of 2006 4 The appellant had advised the respondent to reach the hospital for proper check up. The respondent had reached at about 2.30 p.m. on 23.8.2006 instead of coming immediately. She was properly checked by appellant No.2. There was a huge loss of blood due to excessive bleeding. It was diagnosed to be a case of Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPH). It was a documented post delivery complication and could occur to any normal patient. The appellant cannot be blamed for it. Since the condition of the respondent was serious, she was administered a drip of glucose and she was referred to Mansa for further treatment. There was no complication except PPH. The respondent had never come to the appellant thereafter. It was specifically denied if the appellant had charged an amount of Rs.700/- from the respondent or from her father as alleged.
11. It was denied for want of knowledge if the respondent had taken medical treatment thereafter. However, the appellant had not committed any medical negligence while treating the respondent. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
12. The respondent filed her affidavit Ex.C2. She also proved documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 to Ex.C13 and she filed her supplementary affidavit Ex.C14. On the other hand, appellant No.2 filed her affidavit Ex.R1 and the affidavit of Dr.Daljit Kaur Bakshi as Ex.R2. The appellants also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R15.
13. Dr.Navjot Kaur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital appeared as CW1 and she was cross-examined by the appellants at length.
14. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.2000/- vide impugned judgment dated 30.8.2006. The appellants were directed to make the payment of Rs.55,000/- to the respondent as compensation with interest @ 9% p.a.
15. Hence, this appeal.
16. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPH) was a post delivery complication. The appellant First Appeal No.1260 of 2006 5 had not committed any medical negligence while performing delivery of the respondent. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2006 be set aside.
17. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
18. The admitted facts are that the respondent was admitted in the appellant hospital for delivery purposes on 20.8.2005. The delivery was conducted by Dr.Surinder Kaur Bhalla appellant No.2. It had taken place on 2.30 a.m. on 20.8.2005. The delivery was normal. The respondent was discharged on the same day at 6.00 p.m.. It was also admitted that the respondent had again come to the hospital of the appellants on 23.8.2005 because of bleeding. She was medically attended by appellant No.2 and after administering two bottles of glucose, the respondent was again discharged on 23.8.2005 at about 4.00 p.m..
19. The appellant has denied if she had received an amount of Rs.2600/- on 20.8.2005 as medical fee for performing delivery or if the appellant had charged a sum of Rs.700/- as medical fee on 23.8.2005. Appellant No.2 was only a midwife (Nurse). She was not even a doctor. She herself has proved her certificate issued by the Punjab State Medical Faculty on 16.5.1973 as Ex.R3 and the certificate of training issued by the Punjab Nurses Registration Council as Ex.R4. The appellant also proved the delivery case history of the respondent as Ex.R8 which proves that the respondent was admitted in her hospital on 19.8.2005. The delivery was performed on 20.8.2005 and she was discharged on the same day.
20. Since appellant No.2 had opened Kapoor Hospital in Talwandi Sabo, it cannot be believed if the appellant had conducted the delivery of the respondent gratuitously. The appellant has not given any reason in the written statement as to why she conducted the delivery without receiving the money. The appellant has only pleaded in para 3 of the written reply that no amount, whatsoever, had been charged from the respondent and it was purely on the basis of personal and family relations with the respondent. The appellant has not given any basis on which she developed personal and family relations with the respondent who was resident of First Appeal No.1260 of 2006 6 village Kotli Kalan while the appellant was running the hospital in Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo.
21. The appellant has also pleaded that she had not received any amount even on 23.8.2005 whereas admittedly, the appellant had administered two bottles of glucose to the respondent. In para 4 of the written statement, the appellant has specifically pleaded that "it has been already mentioned above, no amount had been ever charged from the complainant and it was only on the basis of personal and family relation that the complainant had been given treatment" Since there is no basis for believing that the appellant had been giving free medical treatment to the respondent and what was the basis which developed family and personal relation between appellant No.2 and the respondent, therefore, the version of the appellant is disbelieved and it is held that the appellant had charged a sum of Rs.2600/- on 20.8.2005 for performing delivery of the respondent and she had charged a sum of Rs.700/- on 23.8.2005 for administering two bottles of glucose. Since the appellant extended the medical services on payment basis, therefore, the respondent was a consumer qua the appellant.
22. The respondent has pleaded that her condition deteriorated. She was again admitted in Civil Hospital, Mansa on 23.8.2005 but her condition did not improve. Rather it deteriorated.
23. The respondent was again admitted in the Civil Hospital, Mansa on 15.9.2005. The respondent has proved the receipts dated 15.9.2005 and 16.9.2005 issued by the Civil Hospital as Ex.C1. She also proved the other receipts and medical tests conducted on the respondent on 15.9.2005. The OPD slip for 15.9.2005 has also been placed on the file. The bed head ticket has also been placed on the file. This medical treatment clearly reveals that on 17.9.2005, the retained products of conception were taken out from the body of the respondent.
24. The respondent was attended by Dr.Navjot Kaur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mansa who appeared as CW1. She deposed that Sukhwinder Kaur respondent was profusely bleeding per vagina on 15.9.2005 at 3.10 p.m.. She had First Appeal No.1260 of 2006 7 delivered a child about one month back. She had come on account of post partum haemorrhage (PPH). There were various causes of PPH. In this case, sonography was got conducted which showed retained products of conception. HB of the respondent was only 3 grams. 4 units of blood were administered to her. The antibiotics were also administered. On 17.9.2005, D & C (Dilation and Currette) was done and retained products of conception work curetted and the respondent was discharged on 17.9.2005 in satisfactory condition. She also deposed in her statement that in this case, the products of conception remained and could not be removed properly at the time of delivery. She also produced a copy of the patient's history as Ex.C1.
25. Dr.Navjot Kaur CW1 admitted in her cross-examination that earlier the respondent remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Mansa from 23.8.2005 to 27.8.2005. She was bleeding per vagina at that time also but conservative treatment was given. She also deposed in the cross-examination that it was the duty of the doctor who was conducting the delivery to ensure that the placenta was completely removed.
26. Therefore, there is positive evidence on the file that because of the medical negligence on the part of appellant No.2, the placenta was not removed completely at the time of delivery of the respondent. It resulted in the complications and, therefore, it was clear cut case of medical negligence.
27. In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
28. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 6.10.2006. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
29. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. First Appeal No.1260 of 2006 8 Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
30. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent immediately.
31. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 9.5.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
32. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER May 20, 2011.
Paritosh