Jasbir Kaur wife of Sh. Kuldip Singh son of Sh. Bachan Singh, aged 27 years, resident of Akhara, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana.
(Complainant)
Vs.

1. Jatinder Nursing Home & Hospital through Lady Doctor Jatinder Kaur.

2. Lady Doctor Jatinder Kaur, Vishal Nagar, Chowk Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Raikot Road, Mullanpur.

(Opposite parties)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
…..

Quorum:
T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present:
Sh. M.S. Sethi Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Advocate for OPNo.1 & 2.
Sh. Rajiv Abhi Advocate for Op No.3.

O R D E R
T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:
1. For delivery of child, complainant took admission in Jatinder Nursing Home & Hospital, Ludhiana (OP No.1), where after caesarean on 14.7.2003, remained admitted up to 18.7.2003. She During period of admission suffered with fever and other ailments, which were not cared by lady doctor Jatinder Kaur-OP No.2. Request of the complainant to opposite party to get her examined from an expert doctor was not cared by opposite party. Condition of the complainant deteriorated. So, she got herself discharged form hospital of opposite party no.1 and was referred to Dr. B.K. Gill of D.M.C. Hospital. She remained admitted in DMC Hospital from 18.7.2003 to 6.8.2003 and was apprised in D.M.C. Hospital that her trouble had arisen due to non removal of placenta properly, which was required to be cleared after delivery of child. Before proper cleaning, womb was stitched and such act on the part of opposite party was negligent. Due to non removal of placenta, complainant remained under pain for four days at hospital of opposite party no.1 and thereafter in D.M. C. Hospital. In D.M. C Hospital she was operated on 23.7.2003. Her problem arose due to infection in the womb, resulting removal of her uterus. Infection of uterus occurred due to non removal of placenta property and the same amount to negligent treatment by opposite party no.2 in the hospital of opposite party no.1. Due to septicemia, complainant was again admitted in D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana on 29.8.2003 till 6.9.2003. Claiming such negligent act on the part of opposite party filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has sought compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- from the opposite party.


2. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 in their reply claimed that allegations levelled by the complainant are vague, indefinite and lacs material particulars. Complainant failed to pin point alleged deficiency in service, so, complaint deserve dismissal. Dispute raised by the complainant can not be decided in a summary jurisdiction and complaint is lodged due to greed and without any basis. It is admitted that the complainant came to the hospital of opposite party on 14.7.2003 and after examining her found that she had pre matured raptured membranes. Therefore, immediate caesarean was advised and after obtaining consent for surgery, caesarean was done under spinal anesthesia. At that time uterus was full of foul smell. Same was cleaned with mop and irrigated with betadine and saline. Wound was closed in layers. Denied that complainant continuously suffered from fever and other ailments. During admission, body temperature remained 98F. There was no complaint of the complainant after operation. However, on 16.7.2003, she complained of mild abdomen pain, for which injection was advised. Consequently, denied that the complainant had been requesting to take her care and to diagnose cause of ailment but no heed was paid by opposite party. Rather, she was given proper treatment and care. Complainant and her husband Sh. Kuldip Singh voluntarily sought discharge on 18.7.21003 form the hospital on the ground that newly born daughter was admitted in D.M.C. and presence of mother was required there. At the time of discharge, her condition was good. She was eating, drinking and walking. Opposite party no.2 is a qualified doctor and has made more than 500 deliveries. Hence, there was no need to her to get the complainant examined from another expert doctor as her condition was satisfactory. Consequently, denied that condition of the complainant deteriorated in the hospital of the opposite party. It is denied that in D.M. C. Hospital, complainant was told that her problem or trouble arose due to non removal of placenta properly. Whereas cleaning and removal of placenta was not difficult after caesarean. After delivery, proper cleaning of the womb was done and thereafter wound stitched. No placenta was left in the womb. False allegations qua it have been levelled. Complainant never remained under treatment in D.M. C. Hospital from 18.7.2003 to 6.8.03 due to any fault of the opposite party. There was no infection in the womb of the complainant at the time of her discharge from the hospital of the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation of claimed relief.


3. OP No.3- insurance Company of opposite partiesno.1 & 2 have also claimed that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party no.3. They have for want of knowledge denied the allegations of the complainant.


4. In order to prove their contentions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.


5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and scanned the documents and other material on record.

6 Main grouse qua negligent treatment meted out to the complainant by opposite party is that placenta after caesarean operation was left in the womb, resulting in septicemia, causing fever, pain and infection, leading to removal of the uterus. So, it is to be seen, whether the complainant is able to bring home such allegations. Complainant qua her treatment from opposite party has only brought on record Ex.C.1 OPD card reflecting her admission on 14.7.2003 and discharge from the hospital on 18.7.2003. But opposite parties have produced the entire record of treatment of the complainant in their hospital, copy of which is Ex.R3. This also shows that the complainant got admission on 14.7.2003 in the hospital of the opposite party and was discharged on 18.7.2003. It is recorded in the chart dated 14.7.2003 that the complainant was in labour pains, pregnant by 36 weeks 2 days, having pre mature rapture of membranes for last 24 house. After observing condition of the patient, LSCS (caesarean) was advised. After initial hesitation, consent for surgery was given at 5.45 P.M. and operation was started at 6.05 P.M. which completed at 6.55 P.M. under spinal anesthesia. Baby was delivered at 6.35 p.m.. It is made clear that uterus was full of foul smell. Mentioned that uterus was cleaned with mop and irrigated with betadine and saline and was closed in layers. It was firmed during closure. Wound closed in layers and post operation condition was satisfactory. Post operative B.P. was 110/70, pulse-92 p/minute, catheter drawing clear urine. In post operative notes, there is no mention that patient had fever or complained of pain. This belies claim of the complainant that she suffered fever and other ailments, which were not attended by the opposite party despite their resquests. Her general condition on 14.7.03 was recorded satisfactory and drip was ordered to be removed . There is no evidence of excess bleeding. Bowel sounds were present and was advised liquid diet.



7. On 2nd post operation day i.e. 16.7.2003, her general condition was recorded satisfactory but complainant had pain in wound . Bowel sounds were present and was instructed to remove the catheter.


8. On 17.7.03, 3rd post operation day, general condition of the patient was recorded satisfactory. Bleeding per vagine was minimal and passing flatus and was advised to start semisolid diet. On 4th post operation day. Her condition was recorded satisfactory, was passing flatus and was advised certain injections.


9. On the back of consent form dated 14.7.2003, obtained prior to caesarean also mentioned that complainant got discharged on her own request, which request was signed by her husband. Consequently, stood discharged from the hospital on 10.30 P.M. on 18.7.2003 on her own request.



10. It is contended that no such request for discharge was made and record has been manipulated. But when her condition deteriorated, OP doctor herself referred her to D.M. C. Hospital. This contention appears running contrary to the record Ex.R.3 of the hospital of opposite party.



11. Complainant after such discharge from the hospital of opposite party on 19.7.2003, took admission in D.M. C. Hospital and remained admitted upto 14.8.2003 as recorded in discharge summary Ex.C.2. Subsequently again was admitted in the same hospital on 29.8.2003 till 6.9.03 as recorded in the discharge summary Ex.C.3. But instead of referring the discharge summary Ex.C.2 and C3, we would refer history of the treatment of the complainant in D.M.C. Hospital from her entire record Ex. Cx. This record Ex. Cx of the entire treatment of the complainant in D.M.C & Hospital from 19.7.2003 was got examined by the complainant from that hospital. Be it stated that the complainant had earlier filed an application to summon treating doctor of D.M.C. & Hospital Dr. B.K. Gill but that application was withdrawn and treatment record of the complainant from D.M.C. was summoned. At the time of summoning of the record or its production, no request was made to cross-examine the treating doctor B.K. Gill of D.M. C & Hospital but when the case had matured after closing evidence by the parties for arguments, an application for summoning Dr. B.K. Gill of D.M.C & Hospital, filed. But we feel that at this stage, in this old complaint of 2003, no purpose would be served by calling doctor when record of the hospital Ex. Cx in entirety has been brought on record. So, we are not allowing that application.


12. First page of the treatment record Ex.Cx shows that it was 5th day after delivery of baby, when the complainant was admitted in D.M.C & Hospital. She was having temperature 99-100 F from last one day. This belies the claim of the complainant that she had fever and other ailments after caesarean operation which were not attended, because on 19.7.03 in D.M.C. & Hospital recorded that she was having fever 99-100F since one day only. Also recorded that she was having palpations (ghabrahat ) since one day. She had passed motion. She was having burning michinitia since two days after removal of catheter. Progress notes dated 23.7.03 containing consent of husband of the complainant for operation shows that complainant required urgent hysterectomy due to continuous vomiting and loose motions and abdominal distension and fluid collection in peritoneal cavity . Further noted that pus in whole of the abdominal cavity had collected and there was no other alternative except to remove the uterus.


13. It appears that condition of the complainant deteriorated due to collection of pus in abdominal cavity. But such collection of pus in abdominal cavity can not be attributed to caesarean operation. As the womb or uterus is located under the abdominal cavity. For caesarean operation, outer skin of abdomen required to be cut and then to cut the uterus wall for removal of baby. Record of the treatment of OP-Hospital goes to show that after caesarean operation, uterus was cleaned, washed, stitched and then layers were also closed and stitched. Her condition thereafter was satisfactory till she got discharge on 18.7.2003 from the hospital. On that day, she got herself discharged because her newly born baby was admitted in D.M.C & Hospital. At that time there was no complaint of pain in her stomach nor of any fever , so, it means abdominal pus collected subsequently, may be for any reason, unconnected with the opposite party. From the medical record of D.M.C & Hospital, it is not made out as alleged by the complainant that infection in the womb developed as placenta was left inside the womb after caesarian operation.


14. In latest authority on the point the point of medical negligence is Martin F. D’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq 1 (2009) CPJ 32 (Supreme Court). Hon’ble Apex court in that case has led general principles of medical negligence. In the words of their Lordships “A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgement in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. For instance, he would be liable if he leaves a surgical gauze inside the patient after an operation vide Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Others Vs, State of Maharashtra & Others, AIR 1996 SC 2377, or operates on the wrong part of the body, and he would be also criminally liable if he operates on someone for removing an organ for illegitimate trade.”



15. In another case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram & Ors. 2005 (3) Apex Criminal 268 (Supreme Court), their Lordships have held that “A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: (i) either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, (2) or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. Further their Lordships concluded that unless negligence is established, primary liability can not be fastened on the medical practitioner.



16. There is no support to such allegations of the complainant that OP doctor was negligent in treating her and had not removed the placenta properly, due to which he suffered problems, resulting in removal of her uterus, available from the record. Hence, we can not say or conclude that condition of the complainant worsened on account of negligent treatment by OP doctor resulting for removal of her uterus. Hence, finding no merit, complaint stand dismissed.