Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.      The first Opposite Party Hospital filed its Written Version admitting that the Caesarean Section was performed on the Complainant on 13.03.2005, but  denied that the Complainant  had high fever on 18.03.2005 and  pleaded  that the temperature was only 99° F on 18.03.2005 which was common in a post-operative patient.  The  Complainant  was  discharged on 19.03.2005,  on which date, the Complainant  had  temperature ranging  from 98.6° F to 98.8° F.  It was averred that the Complainant  had  never  visited  the  Gynecologist  on 21.03.2005;  that she  had never  mentioned the number of  days  she had  suffered from fever; had visited the treating doctor only on 28.04.2005, i.e., on the 47th day, post-Cesarean Section;  that  the  bill  dated 21.03.2005 is by Dr. Sanju, the  Pediatrician, who  had seen the Complainant's  child  and that the Complaint is bad for non-joinder of the said doctor.  It was also denied  that  the Complainant  had visited the Hospital on 13.05.2005,  in a critical condition.  It was stated that the treatment alleged to have been  given  to the Complainant at CMC, Vellore, was not in their knowledge. 

9.      The treating doctor filed her Written Version stating that the patient had first  consulted  her  on 26.07.2004; had regular ante-natal check-ups from 26.07.2004 onwards; was admitted on 13.03.2005 with Complaint  of  vaginal leakage; Cesarean Section was performed on 13.03.2005 after taking consent and a healthy male baby weighing 2.65 kg was born.  It was stated that the Complainant  had  never complained of  high fever,  immediately after  the  operation and that, at the time of discharge, on 19.03.2005,  the  temperature was  ranging  between  98.6° F to 98.8° F, which was  the  usual  manifestation, commonly  seen in any post-operative period. It was denied that the Complainant  had  subsequently  approached  her  with  continuous fever.  It was only on 28.04.2005, i.e., on the 47th day of LSCS that  the Complainant had approached her with minimal oozing from the wound site.  Betadine, the standard  medicine for   external   application  was prescribed  and  the patient  did not turn up  again, for consultation.  It  was averred  that  she could not make detailed  investigations  to trace out  the cause of  oozing,  as the patient  herself  had 'voluntarily abandoned'  further treatment,  after 28.04.2005.

16.    The learned  counsel representing  the treating  doctor and also the Opposite Party  Hospital  submitted  that the patient  had never visited the treating doctor after  the procedure, except on 28.04.2005 and thereafter  also, never  came for a review, thereby did not give an opportunity to the treating  doctor to diagnose the infection, if any, and to treat the patient, accordingly;  that the Certificate of Dr. Tomi Mathew cannot be relied upon as he is well-known to the Complainant herself; that there is a six-month gap between the Cesarean  Section  and  the subsequent surgeries  which the Complainant  had undergone at CMC,  Vellore; that there is no evidence that  the Complainant had contracted the said infection from the Hospital, on account  of  lack of hygiene or on account of any act of omission on the part of the treating doctor.

17.    The brief points that fall for consideration are :

a) Whether the Mycobacterial infection was contracted post-cesarean section in the first Opposite Party Hospital and whether, the treating doctor ought to have diagnosed Mycobacterial infection when the Complainant had  admittedly visited her on 28.04.2005, with oozing from  the  wound site, specially in the light of the admitted history of Mycobacterial infection during the period December, 2004 to March, 2005?.