LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Kranthi Maternity Nursing Home C.C.No.54/2007
Between:
1. Korra Nageswra Rao, s/o.Vasram, age: 28 years, occu: Govt. Teacher.
2. Korra Parvathi, w/o.Nageswara Rao, age: 20 years, occu: House wife.
Both are residents of Bethigudem village, Dummugudem
mandal, Khammam District.
….Complainants
and
1. Dr.P.Shyamalamba, c/o.Kranthi Maternity Nursing Home, opposite Head Post office, Kothagudem.
2. Smt.Kalyani, c/o.Krishna Clinical services centre, opposite I town police
station, Beside INTUC office, Kothagudem.
...Opposite Parties.
This C.C. came up before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.E.Rama Chander Rao, Advocate for Complainant; Sri.K.Babji, Advocate for opposite party No.1; Sri.S.Davood Ali, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri. K.V.Kaladhar, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
The complainant No.1 is the Govt. Teacher and the complainant No.2 is the house wife. Complainant No.2 got pregnancy, since then she was under the treatment of opposite party No.1. After completion of nine months, opposite party No.1 advised to join in the hospital on 28-2-2006, accordingly she was joined in the hospital. Further she approached the opposite party No.2 and underwent for blood test(HIV Test), which is advised by the opposite party No.1. After examination, opposite party No.2 issued blood test report to the complainant No.2 and the same was handed over to the opposite party No.1, observed the same and informed the complainants that the complainant No.2 was suffering with HIV Type-I, as such refused to give any treatment or any first aid and necked out them with the hospital staff. Further the complainants approached 3 to 4 doctors in the town, they also refused to give treatment. Again complainants approached the opposite party No.1 for help, opposite party No.1 wrote a referral letter to Singarani Colleries Main Hospital, Kothagudem for further management and investigation stating that the complainant No.2 is suffering from HIV type-I. On observing the said letter, they also refused to give treatment. in the meantime, the complainant No.2 faced unbearable pains and in such pathetic condition, again the complainants approached opposite party No.1 at about 12-00 mid night for treatment, again she refused to give treatment and wrote another letter similar to the lines of first letter, to Govt. Hospital, Khammam with an advise to go there. From then they went to Govt. Hospital, at around 5.30 a.m. in the morning hours 1-3-2006 and joined in the Govt. Hospital, Khammam in Gynecology Department and gave birth to a healthy female child on the same day at 10.30 a.m. in the morning.
The doctors at Govt. Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam observed the reports issued by the opposite party No.2, through A.P.State Aids Control Society, Hyderabad and it is confirmed that the complainant No.2 has no HIV Positive Type-I. On observing the said report, for reconfirmation, the complainants were referred to well repute private lab, the said lab also issued a report stating that the complainant No.2 was not suffering from HIV Non reactive. Thus, it is made clear that the opposite party No.2 had issued a wrong report without exercising proper skill and caution. Basing on the report, opposite party No.1 refused them to give treatment. If the opposite party No.1 has got any doubt about the probability of any HIV etc., she has ample opportunity for months together to advice her to get it examined, but with gross negligence without having any care for patient and medical norms and at the fag end referred for such test and on receipt of report without seeking second opinion, bluntly refused the complainants, which is against the true spirits of Medical Jurisprudence.
On 15-3-2006 the complainants approached opposite parties for clarification, but they failed to give proper reply. The complainants got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 with a demand to pay damages Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively, but they did not pay the damages and gave evasive reply.
Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 24% from the date of complaint till the date realization to the complainants, to award costs.
2. On receipt of the notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counter separately.
3. In the counter, opposite party No.1 contended that she has advised the complainant No.2 to come and join in the hospital on 28-2-2006 as it was the expected date of delivery, advised for blood test, on seeing the report issued by opposite party No.2, she refused to give treatment. It is submitted that the opposite party No.1 is not aware that the complainants approached the 3 to 4 doctors and they refused to give treatment. It is further denied that the complainants again approached the opposite party No.1 for help, in turn recommended the complainant No.2 to S.C.Company hospital, as she was suffering from HIV type-I, again the complainants approached the opposite party No.1 at mid night, for treatment, further referred to Govt. Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam. It is submitted that before taking delivery, every patient is required to go for HIV and other routine blood test. If HIV is found positive or reactive, then that shall be confirmed in Western Bolt Test, and the patient shall have to undergo caesarian section under special precaution. As the Westren Bolt test is not available in Kothagudem other than S.C.C.L. Main hospital, opposite party No.1 referred the complainant to the said hospital, Kothagudem and subsequently to the Govt. Hospital, Khammam, where the facility is available. It is further denied that refusal of complainant No.2 without giving treatment consequent to the report of the opposite party No.2 without referring to second opinion amounts to gross deficiency of service. It is submitted that due to lack of facilities, the complainant No.2 advised to go to other hospital, where the facilities are available. It is further denied that there is gross negligence on her part and she played fraud by cheating and committed breach of trust and her attitude amounts gross dereliction of duties and liable for damages. It is further denied that she gave evasive reply to the legal notice issued by the complainants. It is submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation and not tenable. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the written version of opposite party No.2, it is stated that the she is a qualified micro biologist a para medical practitioner, all the tests conducted by her based on antigen or and specific kits of various companies who got approved by the Indian Medical Council or World Health Organization. It is further stated that they advised the complainant about the suggested clinical correlation, that they issued only a screening test report, it is not a final report, it should be cross checked by standard laboratories and high placed test even then also the screening test should be confirmed by Elisa Western Blot and DNA Polymerase chain reaction, viral culture etc., after conducting the test the HIV kit devise of J.Mithra handed over it to the complainants and obtained acknowledgment along with report, in his report also the opposite party No.2 clearly explained to the Complainant No.1 and suggested clinical correlation, in the complaint he does not mention about the kit devise. It is further stated that when the complainant made a phone call, answered the opposite party No.2 and suggested him to consult the medical distributors, informed the same to the medical distributors who supplied the kit. The medical distributors at the request of opposite party No.2 went to the complainant with a request that they would do the conformity test at free of cost, but the complainant did not pay any interest to undergo the conformity test and started blackmailing attitude on phone, it clearly shows the ill motives and blackmailing intention. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On behalf of the complainants, the following documents have been filed and marked as Exhibits.
Ex.A.1 - Medical prescription, dt.28-7-2005
Ex.A.2 - Blood examination report, dt.22-8-2005
Ex.A.3 - Medical prescription, dt.6-10-2005
Ex.A.4 - Obstetrical ultra sound report, dt.8-10-2005
Ex.A.5 - Medical prescription, dt.26-12-2005
Ex.A.6 - Medical kit
Ex.A.7 - Referral letter, dt.28-2-2006
Ex.A.8 - Referral letter, dt.28-2-2006
Ex.A.9 - Delivery certificate, dt.1-3-2006
Ex.A.10 - out patient ticket, dt.2-3-2006
Ex.A.11 - Laboratory report form, dt.2-3-2006
Ex.A.12 - Blood test report along with kit
Ex.A.13 - Legal notice along with acknowledgments
Ex.A.14 - Reply notice on behalf of opposite party No.1, dt.26-4-2006
Ex.A.15 - Reply notice on behalf of opposite party No.2, dt.26-4-2006
6. On behalf of opposite party No.1, no witness is examined and no documents are marked. A memo is filed to treat the contents of counter as written arguments.
7. On behalf of opposite party No.2, no witness is examined and no documents are marked. But they filed written arguments.
8. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, the points that arose for consideration are,
1. Whether there is deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1
in giving treatment to the complainant No.2?
(or)
Whether there is deficiency on the part of opposite party No.2 in issuing the
wrong report without confirmation?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for damages as prayed for?
Point No.1:
9. It is the case of the complainant No.2 that she got pregnancy and since then she has taken treatment at opposite party No.1 hospital and after completion of 9 months pregnancy, opposite party No.1 advised her to come and join in the hospital on 28-2-2006, as it was the expected date of delivery, accordingly, she has joined in the hospital. Opposite party No.1 further advised the complainantnNo.2 to undergo for blood test. Complainant No.2 approached the opposite party No.2 for blood test, after examination, opposite party No.2 had issued blood test report by mentioning that she was suffering from HIV Type -1. On observing the said report, the opposite party No.1 refused to give treatment to the complainant No.2. The complainants faced much humiliation and apprehended danger to their lives and also their social status and prestige in the eye of their relatives. Further the complainants approached 3 to 4 doctors for treatment, but they also refused to give treatment, again the complainants approached the opposite party No.1 for help, she gave a referral letter to the S.C.Co.Main hospital, Kothagudem stating that complainant No.2 is suffering from HIV- type I, the doctors at S.C. Co. Main hospital also refused to give first aid again they approached the opposite party No.1 at 12-00 mid night and requested to give necessary treatment, she again referred the complainants to Govt. Hospital, Khammam. On 1-3-2006 at 5.30 a.m., the complainant No.2 joined in the Govt. Hospital, Khammam, on the same day, she gave birth to a female child. The doctors at Govt. Hospital, Khammam observed the report issued by the opposite party No.2 through A.P.Aids Control Society, found the complainant No.2 not suffering from HIV reactive.
10. In the counter, opposite party No.1 denied the entire averments of the complaint and stated that before taking delivery every patient is required to undergo for blood test. If the blood test report clarified as HIV positive, then it should be confirmed by Elisa Western blot and DNA polymerase chain reaction, viral culture, etc. It is further stated that in such cases before cesarean, antiviral drugs are to be submitted to the mother to protect the baby. The Elisa Western Blot test is only at S.C.company hospital Kothagudem and at Govt. Hospital, Khammam, as such she referred the complainant No.2 to the above hospitals.
11. In the written version, it is stated that the opposite party No.2 is a qualified micro biologist, para medical practitioner, all the tests were conducted by the opposite party No.2, based on the antigen or and specific kits of various companies who got approved by the India Medical Council or World Health Organization also the test reports are based on chemical analysis only, but not on the own accord of the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 advised the complainant about the suggested clinical correlation. The opposite party No.2 gave a screening test report. Screening test is not final report. The screening test report should be cross checked by standard laboratories and high placed test even then also the screening test should be confirmed by Elisa Western Blot and DNA polymerase chain reaction , viral culture etc.,. After conducting the test, HIV advised to J.Mitra handed over it to the complainant and obtained acknowledgment along with test report. In the report itself, the opposite party No.2 clearly explained to the opposite party No.1 and suggested clinical correlation.
12. We have perused the documents filed by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant filed Ex.A.6, which contains Medical HIV test indicator, which is alleged to have been issued by opposite party No.2. But the complainants did not file any lab report, alleged to have been issued by the opposite party No.2 stating that the complainant No.2 has been suffering with HIV reactive. The complainants also filed referral letters of Ex.A.7 and A.8 addressed to the Govt. Hospital, Khammam and S.C.Co. Hospital, Kothagudem. In those letters, opposite party No.1 stated that she is referring Complainant No.2, who is suffering from HIV Type-I for further treatment. In Exs.A.7 and A.8, it was not mentioned that who gave the said report to opposite party No.1 that the complainant No.2 has been suffering with HIV Type-I. It is the further contention of the opposite party No.2 that it is only a screening test report and it should be confirmed by Elisa Western Blot test, DNA Polymerase chain reaction, viral culture etc.,.
13. The complaint against opposite party No.1 is concerned, on observing the blood test report of complainant No.2 by opposite party No.1, she found the complainant No.2 has been suffering from HIV. In such circumstances, the Complainant No.2 shall take treatment under the observation of the doctors’ of the Govt. Head Quarters Hospital, wherein the facilities are available. As such, opposite party No.1 referred the complainant No.2 under Exs.A.7 and A.8, to protect the complainant No.2 and her baby. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1.
14. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that opposite party No.2 issued report to the complainant No.2, with a report that she has been suffering from HIV type I. In view of such wrong report, the complainants are degraded in the society and they are refused by the doctors in various hospitals. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.
15. For such wrong reports, we have relied on a citation reported in 2004(3) CPJ 553; 2005(1) CPR 687 (SCDRC. Uttranchal) case in between Dr.Ranjan Sharma Vs. Simranjeet Kaur; Wrong report – opposite party examining blood of complainant, a pregnant lady, reporting that she was having AIDS and so she could not give birth to a child – examination of blood by another laboratory giving report that she was having no AIDS – Compensation of Rs.2,000/- awarded for mental agony and distress due to the wrong report.
16. Basing on the above citation, it is an established fact that the opposite party No.2 gave report wrongly by mentioning that the complainant No.2 has been suffering from HIV, in view of such report, the complainants degraded and refused by the private doctors to treat her and suffered mental agony. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No2 and there is liability on his part.
17. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony. The complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed. There is no order as to compensation and costs.
Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 5th day of November, 2009.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibits marked for complainants:
Ex.A.1 - Medical prescription, dt.28-7-2005
Ex.A.2 - Blood examination report, dt.22-8-2005
Ex.A.3 - Medical prescription, dt.6-10-2005
Ex.A.4 - Obstetrical ultra sound report, dt.8-10-2005
Ex.A.5 - Medical prescription, dt.26-12-2005
Ex.A.6 - Medical kit
Ex.A.7 - Referral letter, dt.28-2-2006
Ex.A.8 - Referral letter, dt.28-2-2006
Ex.A.9 - Delivery certificate, dt.1-3-2006
Ex.A.10 - out patient ticket, dt.2-3-2006
Ex.A.11 - Laboratory report form, dt.2-3-2006
Ex.A.12 - Blood test report along with kit
Ex.A.13 - Legal notice along with acknowledgments
Ex.A.14 - Reply notice on behalf of opposite party No.1, dt.26-4-2006
Ex.A.15 - Reply notice on behalf of opposite party No.2, dt.26-4-2006
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:
Submit Complaint..
