State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shyja, vs St.Joseph Hospital, on 27 December, 2013
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/10/706 (Arisen out of Order Dated 16/04/2010 in Case No. CC/02/339 of District Kozhikode) 1. SHYJA ADUTHODIKAYIL HOUSE ,THAZHEKADA AMASOM,MUKKOM.PO KOZHIKKODE KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ST JOSEPHS HOSPITAL MUKKOM.PO KOZHIKKODE KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.706/2010
JUDGMENT DTD :27.12.2013
(Appeal filed against the order in OP.No.339/2002 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode order dated: 16.04.2010)
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Shyja,
W/o.Jayaprakashan,
Aduthodikayil house,
Thazhekkada, APPELLANT
Amsom.P.O Mukkom
Kozhikode
(By Adv.S.Reghukumar &
T.L.Sreeram, TVPM)
Vs.
1.St.Joseph's Hospital,
Agasthya Moozhi,
Mukkom Kozhikode
2.Dr.Chandramathi, Karthika, RESPONDENTS
Mukkom, Kozhikode
3.Dr.Thomas V.Mekkatt,
Gynaecologist,
St.Joseph's Hospital,
Agasthya Moozhi,
Mukkom Kozhikode
4.Babu Johnson,
Anaesthist,
Santhi Hospital,
Omasseri (via) Koduvally
5.Sheena, RESPONDENTS
Nurse,
St.Joseph's Hospital,
Agasthya Moozhi,
Mukkom Kozhikode
(By Adv.E.K.Vasan for R2)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the complainant in OP.No.339/02 in the CDRF, Kozhikode. Medical negligence is alleged against the opposite parties, the details of which are the following. When the complainant became pregnant for the second time she approached the second opposite party gynaecologist for treatment. In fact the second opposite party had attended the complainant during her first delivery. When slight pain started around the probable date for delivery, the complainant was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on 17.12.2001. After giving enema the pain subsided. The complainant was told that it was not yet time for delivery. Even after the complainant suffered delivery pain continuously from 17.12.2001 to 26.12.2001, the second opposite party did not attempt to start labour. It was ultimately due to the insistence of the complainant; the second opposite party did so. The doctor applied medicine to start delivery pain at 11.20 hrs and afterwards the delivery pain peaked at 9 hrs. When the complainant sought help of the fifth opposite party nurse to call the second opposite party, the nurse teased the complainant and abused her using filthy language. It was only then the complainant started to vomit on administration of drips that the fifth opposite party went to call the second opposite party. The complainant was taken to the delivery board and second opposite party gave an injection inside the uterus. After some time the complainant got restless and felt suffocation. There after she felt as if the baby inside was moving upwards. The second opposite party called the third opposite party a gynaecologist and they decided to do emergency operation and complainant was given oxygen at 2.30 hrs. Opposite parties 2 & 3 together after examination assured that the child was alive. The complainant heard opposite parties 2 & 3 saying that there was no anaesthetist in the hospital and they should call an anesthetist from Santhi Hospital to start the operation. The surgery started only after the arrival of the said anaesthetist. After the operation the husband of the complainant was told that the complainant had delivered a still born baby and that the complainant was bleeding heavily. Therefore she should remain in the hospital for some more days. After 10 days of treatment the complainant was discharged on 05.01.2002. At the time of discharge they were given bill for Rs.1305/- only. When enquired about the meagre bill they were directed to see the first opposite party. It was only then removal of uterus without their permission was made known to them and that it was done as it was inevitable to rescue the life of the complainant. The acts of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant ought compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.
2. The opposite parties filed separate version. The first opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the provisions of the consumer protection act. The second opposite party is a well qualified and experienced doctor who had retired from government service. The second opposite party is not the employee of the first opposite party. The second opposite party is functioning independently and having private practice. At times she used to utilize the facilities available in the hospital to attend her cases. The dispute raised requires elaborate evidence. Hence can be properly adjudicated only before a competent civil court. The complainant had filed criminal complaint based on the same cause of action. But was referred, finding that the allegations were incorrect. Dr T.Sheela Shenoy, Professor and Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, after going through the entire records had concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and that only life saving procedure was performed which could not have been avoided. A private complaint was filed against Ops 2 & 5 only. The second opposite party as part of private practice used to admit her patients for delivery at the first opposite party hospital. Whenever she needed help for managing her patients who needed caesarean section, she used to call the duty gynaecologist in the hospital. At the time of the incident the third opposite party was the duty gynaecologist. Senior and experienced staff nurse is posted as the sister in charge and there would be 4 to 5 nurses in the labour room for duty during day time. During night there would be one sister in charge and one duty sister and one or two nursing assistants. Number of staff would be increased as per the number of patients in the labour room. On the night of the alleged incident the sister in charge was Sr.Lisa MSJ who is a general nursing diploma holder and the duty sister was Sr.Anuja.MSJ who is an ANM certificate holder with more than 10 years of experience. The fifth opposite party was the nursing assistant on duty who had certificate of general nursing with 4 years of experience. It was the third gravida of the complainant and the first one is known to be an abortion and the second one is a normal delivery in 1998. The fact that there was earlier abortion was disclosed only later. The expected date of delivery was on 22.12.2001. The complainant was having antenatal check up regularly and did not have any problem. She came with pain abdomen to the second opposite party and as per advice the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 17.12.2001. The complainant was given soap and water enema as per the advice of the second opposite party. On giving enema the pain subsided. She was kept in the first opposite party hospital as her expected date was near. She did not have any pain after that. The second opposite party was doing check up everyday. On 26.12.2001, 4 days after the expected date of delivery, the second opposite party installed cerviprime gel for initiating labour pain. This is the usual procedure done if the patient does not go into labour 4 days after her expected date. She was kept in the labour room under the watchful eyes of the labour room staff. She was given I.V.Glucose. The complainant started having mild pain at 11.30 pm. This fact was informed to the second opposite party. The second opposite party was brought to the hospital around 12 mid night in the hospital vehicle. She examined the complainant .The pelvis was adequate for a normal vaginal delivery. The second opposite party advised oxytocin drip to accentuate labour. The second opposite party was in the labour room from then onwards observing the progress of labour. After 1.30 am on 27.12.2001 there was full dilatation of the cervix and there was onset of second stage of labour. The second opposite party administered the local anaesthetic injection xylocaine prior to doing episiotomy. Suddenly the complainant complained of chest pain and breathlessness while straining for delivery. So the third opposite party was summoned to examine the patient. On examination cardiovascular and respiratory systems were normal except tachycardia and tachypnoea as the uterus was tender and the complainant was restless proper abdominal palpation was not possible. Foetal heart sound could not be heard with stethoscope or even with ultra sound doppler. Per vaginal examination showed fully effected and dilated cervix and the third opposite party felt some soft parts. But could not identify the exact foetal parts. There was some amount of bleeding also. As the main complaint was sudden onset of chest pain and breathlessness Dr.Jyothish kumar, a physician was called and he attended the patient immediately. ECG was taken and there was no significant ECG change except tachycardia. As there was no cardiac problem the third opposite party concluded the cause of chest pain and breathlessness as obstetrical. The possibilities of amniotic fluid embolism, repture uterus and abruption placenta were considered as the causes of chest pain and breathlessness. Whatever might have been the cause the only way to save the life of the complainant was to cut short the second stage of labour by caesarean section even though the baby was suspected dead. In the meanwhile, the fourth opposite party working as Anaesthesiologist at Santhi Hospital, omassery reached the labour room as requested through phone by the hospital authorities. He examined the patient and agreed to give anaesthesia after explaining the risk factor to the relatives of the complainant. The third opposite party informed the husband of the complainant that the baby was already dead and the general condition of the mother was rapidly deteriorating and that an emergency cesarean section was the only way to save the life of the mother. The third opposite party also explained the probable risk that could occur during and after surgery. With their informed written consent the complainant was taken for emergency LSCS. The surgery was done with all aseptic precautions with utmost care and caution. There was blood collection in the peritoneal cavity which was aspirated. The foetus was seen in the peritoneal cavity outside the uterus it was a female dead foetus. The foetus was delivered from the peritoneal cavity. On examination of the uterus the anterior surface was intact and there were lacerations on the posterior surface of lower uterine segment. The lacerations extended up to the body of uterus through the left lateral wall up to the level of round ligament. The posterior leaf of the left broad ligament was badly lacerated and there was a big haematoma. The laceration on the left side was about 10 cms. There was bleeding from the lacerated wound. The placenta which was still inside the uterine cavity was removed manually through the lacerated wound. The wound on the uterus was lacerated and the wound edges were ragged and it was beyond repair. There was profuse bleeding from the wound edges. As the general condition of the complainant was deteriorating, the wound edges were bleeding profusely and the lacerated wound on the uterus was beyond repair, the only possible way to save the life of the complainant was subtotal hysterectomy. The necessity for immediate subtotal hysterectomy to save the life of the complainant was explained to the second opposite party. The second and third opposite parties explained the condition of the complainant to her husband and he gave written informed consent for hysterectomy. Immediately subtotal hysterectomy was performed. The bleeding points were ligated and the lacerations on the parietal peritoneum were sutured. Abdomen was closed after achieving complete haemostasis and adopting normal procedure. The vital signs of the complainant were monitored till 5 am in the operation theatre. Once the vital signs became stable she was shifted to the labour room for further observation. Post operative period was uneventful. Sutures were removed on the ninth post operative day. The wound had healed well and the complainant was discharged on the same day. On 05.01.2002, the complainant's husband was informed that the total hospital bill was Rs.11,983.14/- He expressed his inability to pay that much amount as he was expecting normal delivery. The first opposite party hospital is doing charitable activities and at the request of complainant's husband the bill amount was reduced to Rs.1,035/- after waiving the expenses relating to operation and medicine. No amount was received by third and 4th opposite parties. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. The contentions raised by opposite party no.2 are identical. According to the second opposite party the complainant approached her on 17.12.2001 expressing the desire to get admitted in the hospital on the ground that her place of residence was in a hilly area from where it would be difficult to reach the hospital on time on the onset of labour pain. Accordingly she was admitted on 17.12.2001 in the first opposite party hospital knowing fully well that in case caesarean operation was required it would be attended by the gynaecologist of the hospital Dr.Thomas. The complainant did not have any complaint till 26.12.2001. As there was no pain even on 26.12.2001 with the permission of the patient and her relatives, the second opposite party installed cerviprime at about 11.30 am and she remained in the hospital till 1.p.m. The second opposite party telephoned several times to the hospital to ascertain the condition of the complainant and it was at about 11.30 p.m. on 26.12.2001 she was told that there was mild contraction. At about 1.30 am on 27.12.2001, the staff of the first opposite party contacted the second opposite party over telephone for the first time and informed that labour pain had increased and that they were suspecting meconium staining. At the request of the second opposite party vehicle was sent from the hospital. The relatives outside the labour room were informed about meconium staining and the need for LSCS. On entering the labour room the second opposite party instructed Sr.Anuja to start oxygen, 10% dextraose and prepare the patient for emergency LSCS. There was sudden foetal distress and sudden fall of FHS and need for emergency LSCS etc were recorded in the case sheet. Dr.Thomas was personally apprised on the emergency. The role of the second opposite party ended there. In other respects the contentions raised are identical to the contentions of the first opposite party.
4. Opposite parties 3 & 4 filed version raising contentions identical to the contentions already referred to. According to them what was done by them was a life saving procedure and it was unavoidable. The same was done after obtaining free informed written consent of the husband of the complainant. According to them the anaesthetist was made available at the appropriate time. Cross consultation with physician and necessary check ups were done by them. There was no deficiency in service on their part.
5. The fifth opposite party in her version denied the allegations made in the complaint against her. There was no incident as alleged. The fifth opposite party never abused the complaint or used filthy language against the complainant. The other contentions of the other opposite parties are also seen repeated.
6. Before the District Forum the complainant gave oral evidence as PW1. Dr.Sheela Shenoy was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant. Four witnesses including opposite parties 2 & 3 were examined on the side of the opposite parties as RWs 1 to 4. Exts.B1 to B10 were marked on their side. The District Forum as per the impugned order held that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was not established by the complainant and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal.
7. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are whether deficiency in service is established by the evidence adduced by the complainant and if so whether she is entitled to realize compensation and what is the quantum.
8. There is no dispute that the second opposite party a gynaecologist had infact attended the earlier delivery of the complainant. There is dispute whether the second opposite party was an employee of the first opposite party hospital. But considering the fact that the second opposite party was permitted to use the facilities in the hospital and the related aspects the first opposite party cannot be heard to contend that employer employee relationship does not exist between the hospital and the second opposite party. Admittedly, when the complainant became pregnant for a second time she approached the second opposite party and everything went fine till 17.12.2001. According to the complainant she was admitted in the hospital of the first opposite party on 17.12.2001 when slight pain started. According to the second opposite party the complainant was admitted only because the complainant insisted for admission saying that she was living in a hilly area and it would be difficult to reach the hospital on time once the labour pain started. It is the case of the complainant that her pain subsided after enema was given. It appears that four days after the due date for delivery that was on 26.12.2001 cerviprime was installed to start labour pain. The allegation is that the complainant was suffering labour pain continuously for five days from 17.12.2001 and only when complainant insisted the second opposite party attempted to initiate delivery. The allegation against the fifth opposite party is only that when the delivery pain peaked the complainant asked her to call the second opposite party and at that time the fifth opposite party teased the complainant and abused her using filthy language. It was only when the complainant started vomiting on administration of drips , the fifth opposite party called the second opposite party who on reaching the hospital gave injection inside uterus and after some time the complainant got restless and suffocation started. There upon opposite party no.3 was summoned and it was decided to go for caesarean section. Anaesthetist was not available in the hospital and anaesthetist was summoned from Santhi hospital. Hence the surgery could be started only after the arrival of the anaesthetist. A still born baby was delivered through caesarean section. The fact that hysterectomy was done was not disclosed to the complainant. It was only when the reason for a meager bill was enquired about the fact that hysterectomy was performed was informed to the complainant. These are the deficiencies in service alleged against the opposite parties.
9. But during examination of the complainant as PW1 while maintaining the allegations against the fifth opposite party she has modified and restricted her complaint against others. She deposed that she had no complaint at all against op3 the gynaecologist and op4 the anaesthetist. She knows that they would not be party to any erroneous procedure. While maintaining that the fifth opposite party had abused her, the complainant admitted that a nurse would act only in accordance with the instructions that would be given by the doctor. The complainant could not reproduce the words said by the fifth opposite party. The complainant admitted that the first delivery was uneventful due to the expert treatment of the second opposite party and it was accordingly she decided to approach the same doctor on becoming pregnant for the second time. Her probable date of delivery was on 22.12.2001. During examination the grievance urged by the complainant is that medicine was applied at the cervix at 11.30 hrs. The second opposite party did not turn up to examine her thereafter till summoned from the hospital. Then the complainant stated that her grievance 'now' is that oxytocin was administered to her and the reason for all the subsequent difficulties was administration of oxytocin. According to her oxytocin was administered by way of injection. The complainant admitted that on the date of discharge she met the third opposite party to express her gratitude in saving her life. During cross examination by the learned counsel for op2 the complainant stated that she has also the grievance that operation was performed and uterus was removed with out their consent. But this last grievance does not stand scrutiny in the light of Ext.A5 consent given by the husband of the complainant though the complainant seemed to deny the signature seen on Ext.A5 as that of her husband, he has not turned up to deny his signature.
10. So the main grievance of the complainant after the evidence is that administration of oxytocin was the reason for all the subsequent complications. At the same time during examination of OP2 as RW4 she has only added to the confusion. She deposed that she does not know how much pitocin (same as oxytocin) was administered to the complainant. She also deposed that she does not know who prescribed pitocin to the complainant. She further stated that she is aware that due to the administration of oxygoxin such a complication (repture of uterus) can happen. So the main argument raised on behalf of the complainant is that it is clear deficiency in service on the part of the hospital and its staff to administer oxytocin without being prescribed by the doctor concerned.
11. The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the above admission on the part of the second opposite party is sufficiently explained by her in her deposition and at any rate is erroneous. The second opposite party deposed further that she had examined the patient and prescribed everything. Since the expected date was over by 25th she had performed stripping. She was waiting for normal delivery to happen. She had also applied cerviprime on 26.12.2001 to induce labour pain. When labour pain started at 11.30 pm she asked the hospital staff to contact her in case there was further development. When the hospital staff informed her she reached the hospital immediately. While waiting for normal labour the complainant felt breathlessness and chest pain. Immediately the third opposite party was called after ruling out cardiac problem through the examination by a competent physician. The third opposite party suggested emergency cesarean section. There is no dispute that the complication developed as a result of repture of uterus. According to opposite party no.3 hysterectomy was performed with the assistance of 4th opposite party as a lifesaving measure. It was found not feasible to repair the reptured portion of the uterus and it was heavily bleeding. Hence the only option was hysterectomy. As seen already the complainant has no grievance at all regarding the treatment subsequent to breathlessness and chest pain which developed as a result of repture of uterus. It appears from the evidence of op2 that her case is that oxytocin was administered without her consent. This is not a case put forward earlier. She insisted that she put forward the case that she did not prescribe oxytocin not based on the case of the complainant and the police case and fearing that she will be saddled with liability, but because she did not actually prescribe oxytocin.
12. So really it cannot be said that the denial of having prescribed oxytocin by the second opposite party is explained away as contended by the learned counsel but there is yet another aspect to be considered. Ordinarily a nurse would not dare to administer a medicine not prescribed by the doctor concerned. That apart it is in evidence that the second opposite party was monitoring the situation continuously.So oral instruction to administer oxytocin is the most likely probability. Not only that if as a matter of fact the fifth opposite party administered oxytocin on her own the liability would shift from the second opposite party to the fifth opposite party if as a matter of fact administration of oxytocin was the reason for the subsequent complications. This calls for adjudication of this particular question as an issue between opposite parties 2 & 5. On the available evidence and circumstances we are inclined to reject the case of the second opposite party because it appears from the contentions of opposite party no.1 that during the relevant night the sister in charge was Sr.Lisa MSJ and the duty sister was Sr.Anuja. The fifth opposite party was only the nursing assistant on duty. So in the presence of senior nurse it is unlikely that the fifth opposite party administered oxytocin in the absence of instruction by the second opposite party. For the same reason it is unlikely that the fifth opposite party abused the complainant as alleged. What exactly was the abusive language used is not in evidence in the absence of which it is also not possible to say whether there was infact misbehavior or ill-treatment of the complainant.
13. Now the main question that remains to be considered is whether administration of oxytocin was the reason for the subsequent complication and amounts to deficiency in service. In this regard the stages of labour and whether administration of oxytocin is an accepted procedure become relevant. Both PW2 the gynaecologist who filed Ext.A4 report and RW3 another gynaecologist who retired as Professor and Head of Department Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode gave details as to the stages of labour and various causes of repture of uterus. PW2 deposed that oxytocin is usually given for inducing labour and repture of uterus during labour is rare but is an accepted complication. Hysterectomy is the life saving procedurePW2 has examined the case records of the patient Ext.B7 is the copy of case records with operation note of the complainant available in evidence. EXts.A6 and B1 also contain these details. PW2 pointed out that according to operation notes in Ext.B1 there was a tear on the posterior surface of the uterus which extended to the lateral broad ligament. This could be due to very strong uterime contractions, either spontaneous or due to the drugs or there might have been a weak area on that part of the uterus. PW2 could not say 100% sure how the repture occurred. Strong drugs like oxytocin may be a factor but PW2 is not sure that administration of oxytocin was the reason for the repture. She also could not say that this repture could have been avoided. She explained that the statement, oxytocin was administered without doctors prescription was reproduced by her based on the police records. PW2 gave the opinion that after going through the entire records she could not say whether there was negligence in this unforeseen and unfortunate incident. Pointing out that the drug oxytocin is not seen prescribed by any doctor but mentioned only in the pharmacy sheet. PW2 was of the opinion that the prescription of oxytocin should find a place in the case sheet.
14. RW3 has 36 years of experience as gynaecologist and retired as Professor and Head of Department of gynaecology Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He deposed that there are three specific stages of labour. The first stage extends from the onset of true labour pains upto full dilatation of the cervix . The second stage starts from the end of the first stage and extends upto the stage of expulsion of foetus. The third stage starts from the end of the second stage and extends upto expulsion of placenta. There are certain standard universally accepted management procedure for each of these stages and doctors usually have standing instructions how to manage these stages. Installation of cerviprime after four days of EDD is an accepted method. If labour is not progressing oxytocin is given as I.V. drip. It is also usual accepted procedure. Oxytocin is a uterine stimulant. Pitocin is the commercial name of oxytocin . Referring to Ext.B1 and B6 RW3 deposed that only accepted quantity of oxytocin is seen administered. The instructions given by a gyaenecologist during labour pain of a patient may be either oral or written. Either directly or over phone also instructions are given. These instructions will find a place in the case sheet. According to RW3 repture of uterus can be caused by several reasons. These are usually
1. Previous injury to uterus like caesarean section fibroid removal D & C.
2. Large size of the baby relative to the lady's pelvis
3. Ubnormal position of the foetus.
4. Large number of deliveries
5. Injudicious use of uterine stimulants.
6. Spontaneous repture without any reason.
15. RW3 reiterated the opinion of PW2 that repture of uterus is a known and accepted complication as far as deliveries are concerned. Inspite of best care and treatment repture may occur. The usual requirement of a maternity hospital is an anaesthetist on call. RW3 could not find any negligence on the part of the doctors based on Ext.B1 and they had followed accepted procedure. According to RW3 multiplicity of factors contributed to repture in this case. He endorsed the view that over dose of oxytocin also can cause this repture. He also admitted that records of the hospital will not show the dosage given to the patient. In reexamination he explained that the pharmacy bill as well as nurses record show the dispensation and administration of pitocin and the pharmacy bill shows only one ampule of pitocin. Cerviprime installation started at 11.30 am and repture could have been due to any or some of the reasons.
16. In the Text Book of Obstetrics by Sheila Balakrishnan the several reasons for repture during labour are given. From the available evidence it appears that repture of uterus during labour may happen even spontaneously. No doubt administration of oxytocin may also cause uterine contraction and consequent repture . It is also in evidence that in the case of the complainant the repture happened over a weak scar left by previous abortion. The definite case of the opposite parties appears to be that the previous abortion was not made known to the doctors prior to the second labour. So at the most it can be said that administration of oxytocin had accelerated uterine contraction and the repture and that could not be the sole cause of the repture. After the evidence there is no dispute that the subsequent hysterectomy was performed as life saving measure and the complainant has no complaint what so ever against opposite parties 3 & 4. So also it appears that only accepted procedure was followed by the opposite parties. The available evidence only indicates that accepted quantity of oxytocin was administered to the patient.
17. This being the factual background what can be expected from a doctor is not a standard of treatment which is the highest or the lowest but of reasonable standards. So also a doctor is not an insurer and he cannot assure a particular result. Reliance was placed on the decision of the House of Lords in Wilsher Vs. Essex Area Health Authority to point out that where the injury of the plaintiff was attributable to a number of possible causes one of which was the defendants negligence, the burden remained on the plaintiff to prove the causative link between the defendants negligence and his injury, although that link could legitimately be inferred from the evidence. So the evidence available is the most important aspect and we have referred to in detail the available evidence. Accepted procedure alone is seen followed in this case and administration of oxytocin is not the sure reason for the repture of the uterus as contended by the complainant.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on Harjot Ahluwalia ( Minor ) through parents vs. M/s.Spring Meadows Hospital & others 1997 (3) CPR 1 (NC) urged that when the dose of medicine administered was more than the normal dose and there was negligence on the part of the nurse and no doctor supervised the administration of injection by the nurse, the hospital is liable for the acts of its employees but this was a case where the nurse was not qualified and could not properly read the name of the medicine prescribed by the doctor. As already held there is no evidence in this case to show that excess dose of oxytocin was administered and oxytocin is a medicine normally given to induce labour. So the decision referred to does not apply to the facts of this case.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savita Garg (Smt ) Vs. Director National Heart Institute (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 56; but once evidence is close d it is largely appreciation of the evidence itself to find whether there was negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
20. The legal and factual position being the above it can not be said that the appellant has succeeded in establishing that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties / respondents. In short, the District Forum was justified in finding no merit in the complaint. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Be/
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS] MEMBER