Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ATTINGAL in S.Muhammed Basheer, vs M/S.Samad Hospital, on 9 January, 2012Matching Fragments
3. During the pendency of the complaint in OP.27/03, the first complainant died and the name of the first complainant is deleted from the party array as per the order dated 13.11.03 passed on an interlocutory application.
4. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed joint written version contending as follows -
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is a vexatious complaint filed without bonafides. There is no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants. The complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. On 31.7.02, Dr.Sindhu examined the patient and admitted her for surgery in first opposite party hospital. Blood sample of the patient was sent through the relatives of the patient to obtain blood from Dr.Rao's Blood Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. O + ve blood was brought by relatives and the same was kept in the Fridge. The patient Sajeena had given one bottle of blood, which was issued from Dr.Rao's Blood Bank. The aforesaid transfusion was done on 2.7.02 and the same was uneventful. On 1/8/02, patient was seen by Dr.Sathi M pillai during the routine morning rounds. The operation was done by Dr.S.Meera, assisted by Dr.Sindhu and nurse Pushpavally. The surgery was performed after getting informed consent Anaesthesia was given by Dr.Rony Kurian, in the Form of General anaesthesia, supplemented by Epidural Anaesthesia Dr.Meera and her team finished the operation at 5 pm. Operation was uneventful and the patient's condition was good. Dr.Meera again seen the patient in good condition at 5.30 pm. The operation was done to remove the Fibroid which developed in the uterus. On 1/8/02 at 6.15 pm Dr.Salini as duty doctor examined the patient and found her in good condition. Dr.Salini had seen the patient at 6.30 and 7.15 pm. The second opposite party had seen the patient at 7.30 pm and advised to give blood which was kept for the patient in the fridge. Dr.Salini had seen the patient at 10 and 10.30 pm. Blood transfusion started at 8.30 pm. After verifying the name, age IP.No, blood group and Rh of the patient and those on the blood bag. The records and blood bag are kept in the first opposite party hospital. The patient was given injection Avil 2 ml and injection betnazol ambule I.V as extra precaution to avoid any pyrexial reactions. Dr.Salim was seeing the patient routinely. At 9 pm patient started shivering and blood transfusion was stopped. The patient's vital signs were remaining normal. Wetting of wound sites was noticed by 11.15 pm. Dr.Sindhu had seen the patient at 11.30 pm and had given necessary treatment. She was with the patient and giving on necessary treatment. By about 12.30 am (2.8.02) Dr.Meera arrived and seen the patient. By 12.50 am Dr.Prabhu, Physician, Government Taluk Hospital, Chirayinkil was called in to see the patient. As advised by Dr.Prabhu, the patient was shifted to a higher centre at Thiruvananthapuram. At 1.30 am the patient was shifted to Thiruvananthapuram in first opposite party Hospital Ambulance, with doctors and nurses of the hospital, attending the patient. Second opposite party also was present when the patient was admitted to third opposite party hospital. The patient was an inpatient in KIMS hospital from 1.8.02 to 4.9.02. The patient was admitted at KIMS Hospital at the request and consent of the relatives of the patient. There was no suppression of facts. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not sought the assistance of opposite parties 3 and 4 in suppressing material facts. The patient died on 4.9.02 at KIMS Hospital. The patient Sajeena and the first complainant were undergoing treatment at first opposite party hospital for infertility. They were not willing for tests like Sono Salpinography and IUI. There was no negligence or deficiency in service in performing the surgery on Sajeena. Blood transfusion was started for the patient at 8.30 pm, after adequate precautions. There was no negligence or mistake committed by opposite parties 1 and 2 in the blood transfusion. The patient developed DIC (Disseminated Intra Vascular Coagulation) and advised to continue the Oxygen inhalation, IV fluids, Injection hiper corteisone and also advised urgent blood transfusion or fresh frozen plasma. The doctor advised to shift the patient to a higher centre and the patient was transferred to KIMS Hospital. The patient was shifted to KIMS hospital with all due care and attention with doctors and nurses. The allegation that the second complainant and his brother Ashraf were informed by staff of hospital that the hospital authorities had committed great mistake by giving B - ve blood instead of 0 + ve and her condition is worsened due to the said mistake is totally false and cooked up with ulterior motives. Only cross matched labeled 0 +ve blood supplied for the patient by Dr.Rao's Blood Bank, Thiruvananthapuram was given to the patient, after proper verification of the name, blood group and other particulars of the patient on the blood bag. The label and the blood bag are kept at the first opposite party hospital. It is learned that for blood transfusion to the patient, the blood samples of Sajeena were taken to blood banks at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and Sree Chithira Medical Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. There is no blood bank at Cosmopolitan Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. There was no cruelty or callous indifference on the part of second opposite party. The operation was performed by Dr.Meera, a competent and experienced Gynecology and assisted by Dr.Sindhu and nursing staff of first opposite party hospital with due care and caution. No wrong blood was given to the patient and the allegation to the contrary is denied. The blood was given to the patient under the supervision of the duty doctor and nurse. All necessary precautions and prompt attention was given to the patient during the surgery and blood transfusion. The problems which the patient developed, were beyond the control or expectation of second opposite party and other doctors of first opposite party hospital when the problems arose, Blood transfusion was stopped and prompt treatment and measures were adopted to treat the same. The patient developed DIC which is a very serious condition. The complainants had not sought to have an autopsy done on the body of the patient to find out the actual reason for the death of the patient. Exaggerated claims have been made by the complainants. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not liable or responsible to pay any compensation to the complainants. The relatives of the patient and friends were arrested by the Attingal Police while attempting to attack the hospital with deadly weapons. A criminal case is pending against them in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Attingal as Crime No.478/02 of Attingal Police Station. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed against them.
3. Whether there was any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 3 & 4 in treating the patient Sajeena in third opposite party hospital from 1.8.02 to 4.9.02?
4. What order as to reliefs and costs?
7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and DWs 1 to 5 and also the documentary evidence marked as Exts. A1 to A6 and B1 to B10.
8. POINT NO.1 The first complainant A.K.Nazeer and his wife Sajeena were undergoing treatment at first opposite party Samad Hospital, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram. Their marriage was in the year 1995 and they had no child born to them in the said wedlock. So, they were undergoing infertility treatment at first opposite party Hospital. While so U. S. Scan abdomen was taken and Fibroid Uterus was detected. Thereby, the doctors at Samad Hospital advised removal of the Fibroid by laparoscopic surgery. Sajeena was admitted in first opposite party/hospital on 31.7.02 for laparoscopic surgery. The aforesaid surgery was performed on 1.8.02. After surgery Sajeena was in the post operative ward. It is the admitted case that the second opposite party doctor Sathi M Pillai ordered blood transfusion at 7.30 p.m of 1.8.02 and blood transfusion commenced at 8.30 p.m. It is after starting blood transfusion the patient Sajeena developed complications of blood transfusion reaction.
28. Ext.B10 case sheet with respect to the patient M/s.Shoja produced by opposite parties 1 and 2 would also show that DW2 Dr.R.K.Prabhu was in the habit of working as physician in private hospitals in Attingal area, while he was working as a consultant physician and Asst. Surgeon in Kerala State Health Services. The testimony of DW2 that he has been rendering free services as physician to private hospitals cannot be believed for a moment. First page of P10 case sheet is the reference letter issued by Dr.R.K.Prabhu. It would show that he was working as physician in Samad Hospital, Attingal and he had also working as a consultant physician in Multi Specialty Hospital, Attingal.
Ext.A5 : Medical prescriptions and bills issued by third opposite party KIMS Hospital Ext A6 : Copy of the letter dated 21st January 2010 issued by Mr.K.Murlidharan Nair, Advocate to the opposite parties, Principal Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.
OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESS
DW1 : Sathi M Pillai
DW2 : Dr. R.K.Prabhu
DW3 : Dr.Sindhu Mol
DW4 : Dr.M.A.Sahadulla
DW5 : Dr.K.C.Usha
OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS
Ext.B1 : Original case sheet of Smt.Sajeena maintained by Samad Hospital, Attingal.
Ext.B2 : Reference letter
Ext. B3 : Blood transfusion form
Ext.B4 : Operation register of Samad Hospital, Attingal.
Ext.B5, B6, B7 : Medical records of KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.
Ext.B8: Original case sheet of Sheeba Sethunad of Samad Hospital, Attingal.
Ext.B9 : Original Case sheet of Sreelatha of Samad Hospital, Attingal.
Ext.B10 : Original case sheet of Shoja Suresh of Samad Hospital, Attingal.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
[HONARABLE MR. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN] PRESIDING MEMBER