State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Co. vs Deviner Kumar on 28 March, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 416 of 2016 Date of Institution: 12.05.2016 Date of Decision: 28.03.2018 The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Kurukshetra, now, through its authorized signatory of Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. .....Appellant-Opposite Party No.3 Versus 1. Devinder Kumar son of Ramesh Chand, 2. Ekta (minor), then aged about 02 years, 3. Jaswin (minor), then aged 26 days, both daughters of Devinder Kumar, minors through their father Devinder Kumar next friend and natural guardian, all residents of Village Budanpur Khalsa, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. ......Respondents No.1 to 3-Complainants 4. Dr. Usha Sethi, MBBS C/o Usha Sethi Clinic Radaur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. 5. Dr. R.P. Suri, MBBS, Surgeon, C/o Surgical General Hospital, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. ......Respondents No.4 and 5-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 CORAM: Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. Present: Shri R.C. Gupta, counsel for appellant. Shri A.D. Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Ajay Gupta, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. O R D E R
R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER As per complainants Kiran was taken to the hospital of opposite party (in short 'OP') No.1 i.e. Dr. Usha Sethi on 02.12.2001 and it was told that she was requiring immediate operation for delivery. She herself arranged anesthetist and surgeon i.e. OP No.2/Dr. R.P. Suri. Operation was conducted on that very day. Thereafter she left for Delhi and came back on 05.12.2001. In between she was looked after by nurses only and her condition deteriorated. Ultimately she was discharged on 10.12.2001. As there was no recovery, she was brought to her hospital on 12.12.2001, but, when there was no improvement, she was taken to PGI Chandigarh where an operation was conducted, but, could not succeed. Ultimately she died on 14.12.2001 due to negligence on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2. They be granted compensation as prayed for.
2. In reply it was alleged by OP No.1 that when Kiran (since deceased) was brought to her hospital, she was having bandle's ring impending uterine rupture alongwith passing of me-conium stained liquior per vaginam suggesting fetal distress. Cervix was 2 c.m. Dilation, suggesting obstructed labour which itself was an indication for lower section cesareans sections (LSCS). She was having hemoglobin of 4.5 gram, but, her attendants assured that they could arrange 04 units of blood from Kurukshetra. All the complications were explained to them and with their consent the operation was conducted. They could arrange only 01 unit of blood. After operation by OP No.2 there was no complication and she was discharged on 10.12.2001 with advise to come for follow-up treatment. Low grade fever could be attributed to prolonged labour pain at home and there was no post operative complication. It was nowhere mentioned in the record of PGI Chandigarh that cesarean procedure was wrongly performed. It was simply mentioned that cause of death was post operative septicemia due to anemia.
3. In addition thereto, OP No.2 alleged that there was no negligence on his part. He was competent enough to conduct operation and follow all the medical procedures and complaint was not maintainable against him.
4. OP No.3 i.e. The New India Assurance Company Limited alleged that the complaint was false and frivolous and complainants were not entitled for any compensation.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short 'District Forum') allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 11.02.2016 and directed as under:-
"...the complaint of the complainants is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainants along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint which is 28.12.2001 till realization."
6. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP No.3 has preferred this appeal.
7. Arguments heard. File perused.
8. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that there is no evidence on the file showing that there was any negligence on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2 or that they did not follow the proper procedure. If some complication has arisen, it does not mean that the doctor was negligent. No post-mortem report was produced by the complainants. Bedsores could be due to lack of proper care, so, impugned order be set aside.
9. This argument is of no avail. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that hemoglobin was only 4.5 gram. It is also alleged by OP No.1 that attendants of patient were told to arrange blood, but, they could arrange only 01 unit. If it was so she should not have been operated upon by OP No.2. She was well aware that hemoglobin was very low and it could result into further complications as opined in medical journals. Fever cannot be attributed to labour pain at home. If after operation there was fever, OP No.1 should have tried to find out the real cause. She must have tried for blood culture etc. as discussed in medical general, which is reproduced as under:
"When infection develops and the patient is systemically ill, urgent and repeated bacteriological specimens, including blood cultures, must be obtained. The advice of a microbiologist must be sought at an early stage to assist with the use of appropriate antibiotic therapy. In serious cases doctors should be prepared to give parenteral antibiotics before the diagnosis can be confirmed."
Noting of this sort was done by OP No.1. It is specifically mentioned in death certificate issued by PGI Chandigarh that the cause of death was post operative septicemia due to anemia. This can occur due to less hemoglobin as discussed above. It is also mentioned in affidavit of Dr. Anjali Sharma (Annexure R-8) that lack of adequate blood contributed to the development of pelvic peritonitis. It shows that OPs did not take proper precaution before conducting operation resulting into death of Kiran proves clear negligence on the part of OPs. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
10. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents No.1 to 3-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.
Announced 28.03.2018 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench (R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench D.R.