1. Shri Samarth Hospital, )
Through :- )
(a) Dr. Meera Paranjape, )
(b) Dr. Makarand Paranjape, )

Address :- Lunavat Plaza, )
370, Shivaji Nagar, )
PUNE – 411 005. )

2. United India Insurance Company,)
Kubera Chambers, )
PUNE – 411 005. )... OPPOSITE PARTIES

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Per :- Mr. Gaikwad, President Place : PUNE

JUDGMENT

This is a complaint, alleging negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties – Doctors. The relevant facts are as under:-

[2] The Complainant is a medical practitioner. He is M.D. (Ayurved). His wife – Smt. Shilpa; was in advanced stage of pregnancy. She was admitted in the Hospital of the Opposite Party No.1 on 15/12/2003 for the purpose of delivery. The Complainant’s wife gave birth to a male child at about 10:19 p.m. on the same day. The delivery was made by forceps. She was eventually discharged on 17/12/2003. The Complainant’s wife felt weakness, fever & perpetual bleeding. On 28/12/2003, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors. At about 12:00 in the midnight, the Complainant’s wife – Smt. Shilpa, was admitted in the hospital. She was given sedative. It is alleged that the nurse attached to that hospital and who was attending on Smt. Shilpa gave saline forcefully by trying intracath. The same was given at about 12:00 in the midnight and it lasted till 01:15 a.m. On the next day, second point or dose of saline was started at about 01:30 a.m. It had caused an injury to the Complainant’s wife. It is alleged that the same came out and had caused injury to the patient. The point was readjusted at about 05:00 a.m. Swelling & tenderness developed. At about 10:00 a.m. on 29/12/2003, the patient was examined by the Opposite Party No.1(a) Doctor. The Complainant’s wife was suspected to be diagnosed with malaria. Smt. Shilpa was given Tablet Lariago. The reports of blood & urine were to be obtained. The Complainant submits that these samples were placed by him and the results thereof were obtained, which were in the negative. The Opposite Party No.1 Doctors did not prescribe antibiotics to the patient. The Pervaginal (PV) examination was not carried out. The patient was discharged without bothering about her condition. On the next day, the swelling & tenderness at the spot of intracath was aggravated. On 31/12/2003, the Complainant had removed the patient – Smt. Shilpa; and she was readmitted in the hospital of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors. It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors did not properly examine the patient. Tablet Combiflam and Tablet Rabenac were given to the patient. Again, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors did not give sufficient dose of antibiotics to the patient. The swelling spread up to the mid-forearm. There was no PV examination.

[3] The patient was again admitted to the hospital of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors on 4/1/2004. The swelling spread up to right forearm. Support was given by pillows. The edema spread to the other shoulder as well. Toxic signs were noticed on the face. The Complainant submits that during all this period, sufficient dose of antibiotics was not given to the patient. The PV examination was not conducted. As such, the Complainant had shifted his wife to the Poona Hospital on 5/1/2004. She was admitted as indoor patient in the Poona Hospital in ICU till 10/1/2004. Dr. Naik from the Poona Hospital, who treated the patient, had opined that the antibiotics coverage was not sufficient. In the Poona Hospital ‘fasciotomy’ was done. From time to time five operations were performed on both the hands of the patient. About 01 liter of pus was removed from the right hand. Similarly about 250 ml. of pus was removed from the left hand. The condition of the patient was at high risk. That was solely due to insufficient antibiotics being given to the patient. The patient was however, discharged on 15/1/2004.

[4] The Complainant alleges that during all this period his wife was unable to breastfeed the newly born child. The latter was deprived of breastfeeding on account of total rash & careless act on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors. The Complainant, therefore, prays that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, which he had spent towards the medical expenses, be reimbursed to him from the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors. In addition to that the Complainant has sought compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-.

[5] The Opposite Party No.1 Doctors have filed their written version and have denied most of the allegations made by the Complainant. It is however, admitted that the Complainant’s wife was admitted in their hospital on 15/12/2003 and she was discharged on 17/12/2003. At the time of discharge, certain medicines were prescribed to the patient. It is not known if, the patient had taken those tablets. She was also called upon to visit the OPD after about 05 days from the date of discharge. However, she did not come on the fifth day, but she came after about 13 days from the date of discharge. She had complained of weakness, and therefore, she was admitted in the hospital and an injection to stop the bleeding was given to her. After denying most of the allegations in toto, the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors submit that sufficient dose of antibiotics was given to the patient. Tablet Sporidex AF 750 mg. twice a day for four days was prescribed. It is not known as to whether these tablets were taken by the patient after she was discharged. The remark of Dr. Meenal from the Poona Hospital shows that there was incomplete dose of antibiotics taken by Smt. Shilpa. Despite oral directions being given to do the haemogram and routine urine tests on 29/12/2003, the reports thereof were not submitted to the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors. After the Complainant’s wife was admitted on 29/12/2003, there were no signs of fever, and therefore, that was an apparent sign of not being infected. As such, the antibiotics were not advisable. It is denied that Smt. Shilpa developed ‘puerperal sepsis’, as she did not get proper medication and appropriate antibiotics coverage. The Opposite Party No.1 Doctors have relied upon relevant case-papers and have prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

[6] We have heard the learned advocates who appeared before us on behalf of the parties to the complaint proceeding.

[7] It was orally pointed out on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors that their hospital is already insured. Consequently, the insurance company was also subsequently impleaded in the array of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 Insurance Company, filed its written version, supported by an affidavit dtd.13/9/2005 of Dr. P. M. Kulkarni – Divisional Manager.

[8] After hearing the submissions advanced before us, we find that the allegations leveled against the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors are two fold. One pertains to there is less dosage of antibiotics prescribed by the Doctors. Then, there are general allegations of carelessness, as against the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors.

[9] In order to determine if, there was such less dosage of antibiotics, we shall have to refer to the case-papers. These case-papers have been placed on the record by the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors. The correctness thereof has not been challenged on behalf of the Complainant. One has to bear in mind that the Complainant himself is a Doctor of Medicine in Ayurveda faculty. On 15/12/2003, the Complainant was admitted to the hospital of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors at about 04:30 p.m. She delivered a male child at about 10:19 p.m. Immediately thereafter, the record shows that Tablet Sporidex AF 750 mg. was administered to the patient. It was continued till the patient was discharged on 17/12/2003. On 17/12/2003, when the patient was discharged Tablet Sporidex AF 750 mg. was prescribed for four days. It, therefore, appears that at-least on two days i.e. 15/12/2003 & 16/12/2003, 03 tablets of antibiotics was administered to the patient. We do not know if the said tablet was consumed by the patient, after she was discharged on 17/12/2003 at about 11:00 a.m. Prima-facie, the said tablet was prescribed by the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors for about 04 days at the rate of two tablets a day.

[10] The other aspect is that there is specific mention in the case-paper that Smt. Shilpa was called upon to attend the OPD on 22/12/2003. Admittedly, it is not the case of the Complainant that he took his wife – Smt. Shilpa; in the hospital on 22/12/2003 for follow-up. She was taken to the hospital only on 29/12/2003 that too, in the midnight. Earlier, there was a telephonic conversation between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1(b) Doctor. It took place at about 11:45 p.m. on 28/12/2003. She was then, feeling weakness, fever and there was a complaint of perpetual bleeding. Sedatives were given and the saline was administered to the patient by trying intracath from 12:00 in the midnight till 06:00 a.m. on 29/12/2003.

[11] Now, it is the allegation of the Complainant that while giving second dose of saline, at about 01:30 a.m. on 29/12/2003, it came out and had caused an injury to the patient. The point was readjusted only at about 05:00 a.m. This appears to be quite improbable. That could have been noticed either by the patient or by any of the relatives of the patient or by any attendant in the hospital. It is not the case of the Complainant that his wife had informed about the wetness either in the hand or in the bed on account of said oozing out the saline.

[12] We, therefore, find that the contention of the Complainant that sufficient dose of antibiotics was not given to the patient is not substantiated by satisfactory record. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors have placed on the record the case-papers, prima-facie showing that immediately on admission on 15/12/2003, the said antibiotics was administered to the patient. The same was prescribed for a period of four days after the patient was discharged on 17/12/2003. It is not the case of the Complainant that the patient had taken all those tablets and had completed the course. There is no reason as to why the Complainant’s wife did not attend the OPD on 22/12/2003 for follow-up.

[13] There is another aspect. The Complainant had admitted his wife in the hospital of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors on 28/12/2003. According to him, he came to see his ailing wife only at 10:00 a.m. on 29/12/2003. He had discussed the condition of the patient with the Opposite Party No.1(b) Doctor. The Doctor had suspected that the patient might be suffering from malaria. Now, the contention of the Complainant is that he himself had taken the blood-samples and had obtained the examination report in the negative from a pathologist, whom he knows. The contention of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors is quite contrary. They submit that the patient was asked to undergo haemogram and routine urine tests on 29/12/2003. The Complainant was specifically informed that the pathologist in the hospital of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors would routinely do the needful in the hospital itself. The report of haemogram and routine urine test could be obtained within an hour or so. Despite this, the Complainant took the blood samples and had obtained the examination reports. These reports are not placed on the record. The reasons as to why these reports are withheld by the Complainant are well within his special knowledge. The Opposite Party No.1 Doctors are specific that the Complainant himself had collected the blood-samples and had obtained the results. However, those examination reports are not communicated to these Doctors. This aspect of the matter is not disputed by the Complainant in his affidavit-in-rejoinder dtd.5/4/2005. We, therefore, find that these reports are withheld by the Complainant for the reasons best known to him.

[14] The Complainant is fully aware of the nature of his wife’s case. The Complainant himself had filed an application on 23/1/2009 and had prayed that the contents of that application be read. According to him, he had discussed the problem with 03 different well-known gynecologists. All three of them are unwilling to give their opinion in the matter. The Opposite Party No.1 Doctors are senior medical practitioners, and therefore, these three well-known gynecologists are unwilling to give their opinion in writing. According to these three gynecologists, final diagnosis made by the Poona Hospital was ‘puerperal sepsis’, and therefore, as the patient was admitted in the hospital of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors till then, the said evidence is sufficient. Earlier, the Complainant had filed an application that an expert may be appointed to bring on the record the correct state-of-affairs. The said application was allowed. The Complainant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/-. The copies of record & proceeding were to be sent to Dr. Umarje, who was requested to give her opinion, as an expert. The said order of depositing an amount of Rs.2,000/- was passed on 17/10/2008. It was not complied with till 29/12/2008. Consequently, by an order dtd.29/12/2008, the application to examine Dr. Umarje, as an expert, was disallowed. We, therefore, find that the contention of the Complainant that there was general lack of care on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors is difficult to accept. Similarly, the contention that sufficient dosage of antibiotics was not given is apparently falsified on account of the very medical case-papers produced on the record by the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors. The claim of the Complainant appears to have been based only on his conjectures & surmises. It is no doubt true that the Complainant’s wife had suffered a lot. The same cannot solely be attributed on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors. The doctors seem to have exercised every due care & caution while treating the Complainant’s wife. The very question & answers made in between the doctors and the patient have been reproduced in the written version. The same is on the basis of the entries made in the case-papers. Every possible care is, therefore, taken by the Opposite Party No.1 Doctors.

[15] The other aspect is about the complaint being filed by the husband of Smt. Shilpa. The sufferer in this case is Smt. Shilpa alone. It is she who has adequate cause of action against the Opposite Parties. For the reasons best known to the Complainant, it is not Smt. Shilpa who has filed the present complaint, but it is her husband who is a M.D. (Ayurved) has filed the present complaint. The reasons can suitably be inferred. On account of failure to file the complaint by Smt. Shilpa, the present complaint is also bad in law. For all these reasons, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

The complaint stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.