C.C.NO.286/2008

Wednesday, the 11th day of November, 2009

K. Dass

S/o. Karuppusami

D.No. 45, Annai Indira Nagar,

K.K. Pudur,Coimbatore – 641 038. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. The Superintendent,

ESI Hospital,

Coimbatore – 641 015.

2. Joint Director,ESI C Sub Regional Office,

Panchdeep Complex,

1897, Trichy Road,

Coimbatore – 641 045. --- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us on 26.10.09, 2.11.09 and 4.11.09 in the presence of Thiru. R. Selvaraj Advocates for Complainant and Sri. P.R. Arulmoli, Government Pleader for the 1st opposite party, and Sri. V.V. Sankaran Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.52,790/- towards medical treatment and other expenses, to pay Rs.5lakhs as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and negligence and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is working at Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Mills, Coimbatore. The said Mill is covered under the ESI Scheme. The 1st Opposite Party is the Hospital established under the ESI Act and the scheme thereon. The 2nd Opposite Party is the authority to supervise and administrator the entire working of the ESI Scheme under the ESI ACT. The opposite parties are lawfully bound to provide the Medical Services to the complainant under law. Every month “employees contribution” is recovered from his wages by his employer and remitted the same along with “employer’s contribution” by the employer to the opposite parties. As such the medical treatments providable under the ESI Act is “Service” for the lawful consideration collected in the form of “Employees” and “employers” contribution.

2. The complainant got admitted for treatment in the Hospital of 1st opposite party on 23.04.2007 with the complaint of pain in his left leg. The complainant’s leg was intact without any fracture at the time of admission into the Hospital of the 1st opposite party. The doctors of 1st opposite party performed surgery on the left leg on 9.05.2007, in the said surgery due to sheer negligence on the part of the doctors of the opposite arties performing the surgery, the complainants left leg bone got fractured. But the complainant was not informed about the incident. Later, in the days following the said surgery, the complainant was experiencing continuous and acute pain in his left leg. The doctors of the 1st opposite party discharged him from the Hospital after prescribing some medicine.

3. The Doctors of the 1st opposite party could have taken due care caution in operating the left leg of the complaint. But they have not done so. As such their conduct is nothing but deficiency in their service. Even after discharge from the Hospital of the 1st opposite party and taking the prescribed medicines, he continued to suffer from acute pain in his leg. Hence, he again got admitted to the Hospital of the 1st opposite party for the second time as per their advice on 25.07.2007 and undergone treatment upto 2.10.2007. He was discharged on 2.10.2007. During this period, the 1st opposite party plastered (Mavukattu) the complainants left leg. The plaster was removed by 1st opposite party after eight days. But, the complainant still had pain and unable to even walk.

4. The complainant left with no other option, fearing his life and unable to bear the acute pain, got admitted in Ganga Medical Centre and Hospital (P) Ltd., Coimbatore. It was only in that hospital he came to know that his left leg bone was fractured due to the negligent act of the doctors of 1st opposite party hospital on 9.05.2007. It is only after the said operation, the complainant started recovering from the acute pain and able to walk. The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.38,780/- in the aforesaid private hospital towards medical expenses. The complainant incurred Rs.1,830/- towards dressing, X-Ray charges and consultation. Apart from the above expenses, the complainant spent Rs.5,500/- towards Taxi fare towards to and fro from his residence to the Hospital and back home on several days. Hence, in total, the complainant incurred a total sum of Rs.52,793/-.

5. The complainant sent a registered notice dated 24.03.2008 to the 2nd opposite party and The Regional Administrative Medical Officer, ESI Hospital, Coimbatore. The inaction on the part of the 1st opposite party is also a negligence in the part of opposite parties. The response from the 2nd opposite party also has not redressed the legitimate claim of the complaint. Hence, this complaint.

The averments in the counter of 1st opposite party is as follows:

6. The complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious and unsustainable both in law and on facts. The surgery has been perform ed on 9.05.2007 while removing the tumor the Tibia fracture it is the known complex such surgeries that is very well documented in text book CAMPBEEL’s operative Orthopedics ninth edition volume one. The same complex was informed to patient after surgery. So he is very well aware of the complication of surgery (i.e. fracture tibia). The fracture treated with plaster of Paries application form date of surgery the form of inter locking nail with bone graft with fibular osteotomy refer to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital for surgery on 2.10.2007.

7. It is true that the complainant again admitted on 25.07.2007 upto 2.10.2007 and treated with fibuler osteotomy the fracture was not united. Hence it is decided to undergo surgery for in union of Tibia. Hence, it is refered to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital in 2.10.2007. It is false to state that the complainant was not aware of fracture Tibia due to surgery. On the other hand, it was documented in the case sheet and informed to the patient very well. Since the fracture of the tibia is complication of surgery, there is no role for negligence in the surgery. The discharge summary of the complainant in this opposite party’s hospital will prove and establish the treatment given by this opposite party’s Doctors to the complainant.

8. The complainant has to prove and establish the said expenses met by him. Even if the said expenses were incurred by the complainant this opposite party is no way connected or responsible for the said expenses incurred by the complainant. For the claim of the complainant towards his treatment, deficiency of service, negligence, mental agony, pain and sufferings to the tune of Rs.5,52,790/- this opposite party is no way connected and not liable to pay the same to the complainant as there was no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of this opposite party’s hospital Doctors in giving treatment to the complainant.

9. Since there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party’s hospital no reply was sent to the complainant by this opposite party. There is no cause of action to file the complaint against the opposite arties. The cause of action alleged is false. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

The averments in the counter of 2nd opposite party is as follows:

10. The complaint claiming damages for deficiency in service, negligence, and mental agony is not bonafide and unsustainable both in law and on facts of the case. The facts and figures are not within the domain of this 2nd opposite party and to be confirmed by the 1st opposite party that too after seeking a report from an expert committee of doctors to find out if there exists any negligence or deficiency of service. The complainant simply claimed damages on surmise and his version cannot be taken as true and correct as a whole. This 2nd opposite party suitably replied to the complainant on 16.04.2008 for his notice and felt that no further rejoinder is required since there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the hospital controlled and administered by them.

11. The complainant has approached this Forum without ascertaining an expert opinion from a team of doctors and he has simply rushed to this Forum with unclean hands in order to make illegal gains if possible.

12. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A 11 marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 and B2 on the side of the 1st opposite party were marked on the side of the opposite party.

The authorities filed on behalf of the complainant

1. Supreme Court of India (CA 4965/2000 dt.8th May 2007- Kishore Lal Vs.Chairman, Employee’s State Insurance Corpn.

2. I (2009) CPJ 132

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in

service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

13. The case of the complainant is that he is a worker in Coimbatore Mill which covered under ESI scheme, on 23.4.07 he got admitted in the 1st opposite party ESI hospital with complaint of pain in his left leg, and at the time of his admission his leg was intact without any fracture. The doctors of the 1st opposite party performed a surgery on 9.5.07 in the complainant’s left leg, that due to sheer negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party the complainant’s left leg bone got fractured, the complainant was not even informed of this negligent act by the 1st opposite party.

14. The case of the 1st opposite party is that the surgery has been performed on 9.5.07, while removing the tumour the TIBIA fracture occurred while operation, he is well aware of the complication of the surgery, and through the document of case sheet itself the same was informed to the patient after surgery.

15. The case of the 2nd opposite party is that the complainant simply claimed damages on surmise and his version cannot be taken as true and correct as a whole.

16. The fact that the complainant is an insured person under the ESI Act, the opposite parties are lawfully bound to provide medical treatment to the complainant, the first opposite party performed surgery to the complainant on 9.5.07, and the complainant’s left leg got fractured during surgery by the opposite party are all not disputed. The only issue that has to be decided by this Forum is

Whether there was negligence in performing the surgery and subsequent treatment provided by the opposite party No.1?

17. The further case of the complainant as per Para X of the complaint is

“It was only in that hospital (Ganga Medical) he came to know that his left leg bone was fractured due to the negligent act of the doctors of 1st opposite party hospital on 9.5.07”.

But the complainant failed to prove this contention by way of documentary as well as oral evidence. Moreover this allegation was not elicited through PW2 Dr.Rajasekaran of Ganga Hospital who was examined by way of questionnaire. No specific questions were put by the complainant to PW2 regarding the above said allegations. Moreover the questionnaire and answers for question No.7 & 8 are not in favour of the complainant.

7. Whether the diagnose at ESI hospital As per the statement of the patient

that the patient was suffering from this is correct. But the pathology

“Osteiod Osteoma” is correct? Report is not available in our record.



8. If yes, by due care and proper Cannot be stated with certainty

procedure in performing such a as fracture is a known compli-

surgery for treatment of “Osteiod cation while removing tumour

Osteoma” the fracture of Tibia while

taking a window can be avoided

18. As per the above said answers the fracture is a known complication while removing tumour. The 1st opposite party produced copy of “CAMPBELL’S Operative Orthopedics viz.Ex.B2 in support of his case that fracture Tibia is a known complication. It is also true that the author would suggest in para 4 that there is an alternative method in removing the tumour without fracture. But that has to be decided by the doctors at the time of operation depending upon so many factors.

19. Moreover the decision rendered Honble Supreme Court of India in

2009 CTJ 581 (Supreme Court) CP) –

Dr.C.P.Sreekumar, M.S.(Ortho) Vs. S.Ramanujam



Is also in favour of the opposite party. In that decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

“A simple lack of care, an error of judgement or an accident, is not a proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available”.



20. The specific case of the complainant is that his left

leg was intact without any fracture at the time of admission into the hospital of the 1st opposite party. The first opposite party No.1 also admits that the fracture Tibia occurred during surgery with a rider that fracture of Tibia is complication of surgery and there is no negligence in the surgery.

21. Since the fracture of Tibia is complication of surgery there is no role or any negligence on the part of the doctor. The doctor is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from a mischance or error of judgement in choosing the one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in

Martin FD Souza Vs.Mohd.Ishifaq(I) 2009 CTJ Page 352 (SC)

is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

Sometimes despite the best efforts and treatment, the doctor fails. That does not mean that the doctor or surgeon must be held to be guilty of medical negligence.

Hence the allegation raised in the complaint is not having any merit.

22. The 2nd opposite party has no role to play in the treatment and other related services rendered in the hospital.

23. Regarding the reimbursement the complainant has to follow the prevailing practice and it is open for him to approach the opposite parties for medical reimbursement.

24. Hence for the above said reason, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 11th day of November 2009.

Complaint Case No. :202 of 2008
Date of Institution: 25.02.2008

Date of Decision : 04.12.2009



1. Nisha Devi wife of Sh. Des Raj.

2. Sh. Des Raj Son of Sh. Gian Chand

Both residents of H.No.1100, Ram Darbar, Ph.2, Chandigarh.
…….Complainants

V e r s u s

1. The Senior State Medical Commissioner, E.S.I. Corporation, Sec. 19-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2. E.S.I.C. Model Hospital, Industrial Area, Ph.2, Chandigarh through its Medical Superintendent.


.…Opposite Parties

3. The Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector –32, Chandigarh through its Principal Director.

..…Proforma Party


QUORUM : SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT

SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER



PRESENT: Sh. Navin Kapur, Adv. for the Complainants.

Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv. proxy for OP-1.

Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv. for OP-2.

Ms. Ritu Jain, GP for OP-3.



PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER



The case of the complainants is that the Complainant No.1 & 2 got married in the year 2001 but for the first time Complainant No.1 conceived in the year 2007 and was under the treatment and care of ESIC Model Hospital, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh during the pregnancy with LMP dated 22.3.2007 and EDD dated 29.12.2007. Unfortunately, the Complainant No.1, while going on foot, was hit by a Motorcycle on 06.12.2007 at Ram Darbar and she started bleeding profusely and was immediately rushed to ESIC Model Hospital, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, under whose care she was from the inception of pregnancy and reached there at about 11.00 A.M. Because her husband was out of station and due to emergency, the Employee Identity Card was not being carried by her and she was also unable to contact her husband or communicate with him in this regard at that point of time. Accordingly, the Complainant No.1 was unable to produce the ESIC Card at that time. The child in the womb of Complainant No.1 was alive at the time she was taken to ESIC Hospital. OPD card as well as Antenatal Card were produced before the attending doctor, but it was insisted by the doctors present there that for getting treatment over there, she will have to first produce the ESIC Identity Card and only then the treatment will be administrated and the doctors did not even give first aid. After initial probing, refused to administer any treatment and that too after she was made to cry over there for more than three hours i.e. uptill about 2.00 PM. Even when everybody started coercing the doctors to give treatment to her, the Lady Doctor showed her inability to attend to the Complainant No.1 despite having seen the OPD and Antenatal Cards and the Complainant No.1 was instead directed to Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector–32, Chandigarh at about 2.00 PM. The Complainant No.1 was immediately rushed by her uncle-in-law to GMCH, Sector –32, Chandigarh. It is further submitted that when the Complainant No.1 was taken to ESIC Hospital, at that time, it was told by the doctors that the Complainant No.1 will have to be operated for delivery of the child and it was told by them that the child is alive. At last, after 2.00 P.M. when the Complainant No.1 reached GMCH, Chandigarh, it was declared that the child in her womb has been brought dead. That is thus the case of gross negligence on the part of the doctors at ESIC Hospital and due to their improper care and by not administering required and proper treatment, which was obligatory upon them by virtue of having charged ESI premium from Complainant No.2, the husband of the Complainant No.1, the death of child of the Complainants has been caused who was yet to see this world and before his coming, his eyes have been permanently closed. The Complainant No.2 sent a written complaint to the OPs, for taking legal action against the erring doctors, but no action has been taken by the Authority (OPs 1 & 2).



Alleging this as deficiency in service on the part of Ops 1 & 2, complainants have approached this Forum with the prayer that Ops 1 & 2 may be directed to have rendered deficient services to the Complainants and may now be directed to pay the claimed amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.4,00,000/- or causing death of her child due to gross negligent and deficient services rendered by OPs and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the pain and suffering caused to the Complainants), alongwith interest @18% per annum with effect from 06.12.2007 i.e. the date of admission in OPs Hospital, till payment as well as litigation cost of Rs.11,000/- to them.



2. In its reply, OPs took some preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint etc. Further pleaded that the Complainant was covered under the provisions of ESI Act with effect from 13.12.2002. It is denied for want of knowledge that OP No. 1 got married in the year 2001 and had met with the said accident dated 06.12.2007. But it is admitted that the Complainant reached the OP No.2 at around 11.00 a.m. on 6.12.2007. The Complainant No.1 gave history of being hit by a motorcycle followed by a fall, resulting in some injuries, PV bleeding and pain abdomen. The Complainant was a booked ANC patient and was carrying the ANC card with her. Doctors on duty referred the patient from Casual Ward to Labour Room. A complete physical and gynecological examination of the Complainant No.1 was done and dressing of her bruises was done. The vitals of the Complainant were stable, her gynae and Obs examination was normal and as per speculum examination, Os was closed and there was no apparent PV bleeding. The FHS was also normal. After the initial examination, the Complainant No.1 was sent to Radiology Department, accompanied by the N/o for an urgent USG. After sonography, she was brought back to the Labour Room. The USG report of the Complainant was normal with no signs of abruptca placenta or foetal compromise and as a result, a conservative management of the patient was planned and she was kept in Labour Room itself. It is admitted that OP No. 2 was out of station on that day. Without the production of ESI identity card, which was not even required to be produced at that time, the Complainant No.1 was treated and IV fluids and analgesic injections were administrated to the Complainant No.1 and her vitals and FHS were monitored. At about 1.00 PM, the Complainant No. 1 suddenly developed PV bleeding and her speculum examination revealed profuse vaginal bleeding. The Complainant No. 1 was immediately catheterized and efforts were made to contact her husband to explain the condition, but the husband of the Complainant, as already stated, was out of station, so the condition was explained to the attendant that due to lack of operation facility, the patient needed to be urgently referred to the near by hospital i.e. OP No.3. A proper reference slip, with all the reports and ANC card was given to the attendant and ambulance was arranged from the Labour Room. Complainant No. 1 was sent to Casualty with N/o from where she was transported to the OP No. 3 in the ambulance of the OP No. 2. As soon as profuse PV bleeding developed and abruptca placenta was suspected, the Complainant NO. 1 was immediately referred to the OP No. 2 in the hospital ambulance, as in such kind of patients, treatment may require FFP, BTs and even ICU care, which was not possible with OP No. 2, as such like facilities were not available with OP No. 2. The alleged delivery of dead child at OP No. 3 is denied for want of knowledge. It is correct that the complaint (Annexure C-8) was received from Complainant No. 2 and its reply was given (Annexure C-10). To probe into the allegations of the Complainants, OP No. 1 & 2 even appointed a Committee to ascertain the truth in the allegations of the Complainant No. 2. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report, which is available along with annexures (Annexure C-10), which clearly reveals that the allegations of the Complainants were wrong because the best possible treatment was provided to Complainant No. 1. Thus, the OP No. 1 & 2 prayed that the complaint of the Complainant may be dismissed with costs against OP No. 1 & 2.



3. In its reply, OP-3 pleaded that as per history sheet, OP No. 1 was bleeding since 11.00 P.M. on 06.12.2007 when she had met with a road accident. Necessary medical examination of the patient was done by the qualified doctors and radiologist. Thereafter at around 9.20 p.m. on the same day, the patient delivered a dead baby boy weighting 3 kg. The delivery of the child was Vaginal. The body of the child was also shown to the father and he acknowledged the same. Thereafter, Post Mortem Report dated 07.12.2007 was issued by answering respondent hospital and the patient was discharged in healthy condition at 11.30 p.m on 08.12.2007. Thus, the answering OP prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.



4. We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points / issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions / arrived at, accordingly:-



i) The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant No.1 having taken the treatment in the Hospital of OP No. 2 during antenatal period and also on 06.12.2007, when she had met with an accident and suffered injuries, including bleeding and having reached the Hospital at 11.00 AM on the same day, have all been established.



ii) The basic grievance of the Complainants, especially Complainant No. 1 against OPs, especially against OP No. 2, has been that whereas, she had reached the Hospital on 06.12.2007 at 11.00 AM, she was not attended to by the doctors on duty at the Hospital of OP No. 2 on account of the fact that due to her rushing to the Hospital on account of accident, she could not carry the ESI Employee Identity Card with her and also she was not able to contact her husband, as he was out of station. As per the Complainants, she remained in the Hospital of OP No. 2 till 2.00 PM i.e. for about 3 hours, but no treatment was given to her, not even the first aid and finally, instead of treating her in the Hospital, she was shifted to Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh (OP No. 3), although she was carrying with her, the OPD, as well as Antenatal Cards. At the Hospital of the OP No. 2, as well as OP No. 3, she was told by the doctors that she will have to be operated for delivery of the child. While she was in the Hospital of OP No. 2, she was told that the child in her womb was alive; whereas, when the actual delivery took place in the Hospital of OP No. 3, she had delivered a dead baby boy on the same day i.e. 6.12.2007 at 9.20 PM. She also made a written complaint to the Hospital Authorities of OP No. 2, alleging gross negligence, improper care and lack of proper treatment on the part of the doctors, but no action was taken by the OP and as such, she could not see the face of her son, who had a still birth on that day.



iii) All the allegations of the Complainants have been denied stoutly by OP No. 1 and 2, which are the main parties in the present case, as OP No. 3 is only a proforma party. As per the OPs, they had never insisted upon the Complainant to produce the ESI Employee Identity Card and as a matter of fact, it was not even required, as the Complainant was already having the OPD and Antenatal Cards with her. The doctors on duty referred the patient from Casualty Ward to Labour Room. A complete physical and gynaecological examination of the Complainant was done, her bruises were dressed and it was found that the vitals of the Complainant were stable and her Gynae/Obs examination was normal, as per Speculum Examination, OS was closed and there was no apparent PV bleeding. The FHS was also normal. As per the OPs, after the initial examination, the Complainant No. 1 was sent to Radiology Department, accompanied by the N/o for an urgent USG and after Sonography, she was brought back to Labour Room. The USG report of the Complainant was normal with no signs of abruptca placenta or foetal compromise and as a result, a conservative management of the patient was planned and she was kept in the Labour Room itself. She was also given IV Fluids and analgesic injections and her vitals and FHS were continuously monitored. It was only at about 1.00 PM on 06.12.2007 i.e. 2 hours after her reaching the Hospital, that the Complainant suddenly developed PV bleeding and her speculum examination revealed profuse vaginal bleeding and, therefore, she was, immediately, catheterized and efforts were made to contact the husband of the Complainant (Complainant No.2). Since the husband of the Complainant was out of station, the entire position was explained to the attendant accompanying the Complainant, stating that due to lack of proper operation facilities at the Hospital of OP No. 2, the patient needed to be urgently referred to some nearby Hospital i.e. OP No. 3. A proper reference slip with all the reports and ANC card was given to the attendant and ambulance was also arranged from the Labour Room of OP No. 2. The Complainant was sent to casualty with N/o, from where she was transported to OP No. 3 in the ambulance provided by OP No. 2. As soon as profuse PV bleeding developed and abruptca placenta was suspected, the Complainant No. 1 was, immediately, referred to OP No. 3 on account of the reason that in such kind of patients, treatment may require FFP, BTs and even ICU Care, which were not available with OP No. 2. As per OP No. 2, the alleged delivery of dead child at OP No. 3 is denied for want of knowledge. OP No. 2 further says that since the Complainants had also made a written complaint in respect of certain allegations against the doctors, an Inquiry Committee was appointed, which submitted its report, which is available at Annexure C-10. As per the inquiry report, the allegations made by the Complainants were found to be wrong and it has been stated that the best possible treatment was provided to Complainant No. 1 by OP No.2.



iv) On the similar lines, OP No. 3 have also pleaded not guilty saying that the patient was already bleeding when she was brought to the Hospital of OP No. 3. She was examined by the qualified doctors, as also a Radiologist. At about 9.20 PM on the same day, the patient delivered a dead baby boy through a normal delivery, for which a Post Mortem Report was also issued and the patient was discharged in a healthy condition at 11.30 PM on 8.12.2007. OP No. 3 has denied any deficiency of service on its part.



v) After closely examining and scrutinizing all the documents produced by the respective parties, we find that the main allegation of the Complainants, especially Complainant No. 1, against the OPs, especially OP No. 1 & 2 (OP No. 3 being a Proforma Party) is that whereas on 06.12.2007, she had gone to the Hospital of OP No. 2 and remained there for about 3 hours, without getting any treatment and not even the first aid and further, because of the improper treatment given by the OP No.2, she lost her child, which was delivered at the Hospital of OP No.3 as a dead baby boy. As per the Complainant, while she came to OP No. 2 after meeting with an accident, she was told that the child in her womb was alive and not dead; whereas, when the actual delivery took place at the Hospital of OP No. 3, it was found to be a dead child. The complete case file, both at the Hospital of OP No. 2 and OP No. 3, reveals that the plea taken by the Complainant is not substantiated by any evidence or document; whereas, the OPs have submitted the complete set of documents stating that she was never refused the treatment on account of her not carrying the Employee Identity Card. She was put to ultrasound examination, her bruises were dressed and a Speculum Examination for Gynae/Obs was done and at that time, OS was closed and there was no apparent PV bleeding. The FHS was also found to be normal and after this procedure, she was sent to Radiology Department for USG/Sonography. There were no complications with the patient (Complainant No.1) and there were no signs of abruptca placenta or foetal compromise and, therefore, OP No. 2 planned a conservative management in the Labour Room. Not only that she was also given IV fluids and analgesic injections and FHS were continuously monitored. All this treatment continued till 1.00 PM, when the Complainant suddenly developed PV bleeding, as also profuse vaginal bleeding and, therefore, she was catheterized and efforts were made to contact her husband, who was out of station on that day. Since the team of doctors felt that the patient had to undergo an operation and proper facilities were not available with OP No. 2, she was referred to OP No. 3 for further treatment. OP No.2 itself provided the ambulance for the transportation of the patient. This was done on account of the reason that in such kind of patients, treatment may require FFP, BTs and even ICU Care, which were not available with OP No. 2. Therefore, it is quite clear that the allegations of the Complainants against OP No. 2 are patently false and unwarranted, as what to say of first aid, OP No. 2 has attended to the patient with all kind of treatments, including Sonography, physical examination and medicinal treatment, which has been properly documented as well. The only option with OP No. 2 after 1.00 O’clock was to shift the patient to a better and well equipped hospital, as she was to undergo surgical operation for delivery of her child. It is quite obvious that the ESI Hospital is not a full fledged hospital, which has not got all the facilities, which other bigger and better hospital like PGIMER, GMCH Sector 32 have and the best option with any good doctor or team of doctors in such a case always is to shift the patient to a better hospital and this has precisely been done by OP No. 2 by shifting the patient from OP No. 2 to OP No. 3 and we do not find anything wrong or amiss in the procedure.



vi) Not only OP No. 1 & 2, which are the main parties in this case, have treated the patient in the best possible manner, they had also instituted an inquiry on receiving a written complaint from the Complainants with regard to the alleged improper treatment of the Complainant at the Hospital of OP No 2. The detailed inquiry report is available on record. The inquiry was conducted by a team of three doctors. The Inquiry Committee have completely rejected the allegations made by the Complainants against OP No. 2, giving concrete reasons and grounds for such rejection and we have no reasons to disbelieve the findings of the Expert Committee.



vii) So far as OP No. 3 is concerned, as already stated, it is only a Proforma Party and has not much to do with the present complaint. In the affidavit filed by Prof. Raj Bahadur, Director Principal, Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh (OP No.3), it has been stated that on arrival of the patient at GMCH, the foetus in the uterus did not show any sign of life and it was communicated to the patient’s relative. As per OP No. 3, the patient was examined by qualified doctors of Obstt. & Gynae Department; an ultrasound was done by a qualified Radiologist. She (Complainant No.1) was having pulse rate of 96/minue and her BP was 120/90. But it was noted that Foetal Heart Sound was ‘Nil’. Ultrasound report also confirmed that the foetus/child was not alive. The ultrasound report (Annexure R-2) had the following observation: -



“No feotal cardiac activity noted.”



After necessary confirmation on receipt of Ultrasound report, the child was declared dead and the patient and the attendants were accordingly intimated and the consent of husband was taken for further management of patient. Consequently, on the same day i.e. 06.12.2007, at 9.20 PM, the patient delivered a dead baby boy weighing 3 Kg and the delivery of the child was vaginal. The cause of foetal death, as mentioned in the report, was Placental Abruption (Medical Term for Traumatic Placental Separation). Thereafter, the Post Mortem Report (PMR) dated 7.12.2007 was issued by OP No. 3 and the patient was discharged in a healthy condition on 8.12.2007 at 11.30 PM.



5. From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, it is our considered view that the allegations made by the Complainants are devoid of any merit, carry no substance and weight. As such, the present complaint deserves rejection. We, therefore, dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.


6. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.