Back
2007 (2) CPR 24 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
K. S. Gupta, Presiding Member and
Dr. P. D. Shenoy, Member
S. Thamil Selvi—Complainant
versus
Mrs. Dr. Sooriya Kala
& Anr.—Opp. Parties
Original Petition No. 169 of 1996
Decided on 7.3.2007
For the Complainant:Shri P.M. Bakthavatsalam and Shri Narayan Jha, Advocates.
For the Opp. Party:Shri K.S. Sundar Rajan and Shri S. Nanda Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) —Deficiency in medical service—Complainant delivered a child by normal delivery—OP doctor while cutting her body cut her rectum tube also—Mother and child were retained in hospital for nearly 3-1/2 months and during period of stay patient had to be taken to operation theatre several times—Complaint alleging deficiency in service—Hospital records showed that patient was inflicted with several procedures one after another and taken to operation theatre repeatedly—If
episiotomy procedure was performed with due care it would have healed within few days—No explanation offered by O.P. Doctor as to if episiotomy was performed through media lateral procedure why it resulted in rupture of anus causing mixture of stools and blood oozing from episiotomy wound resulting in unbearable suffering to patient for several days—No explanation on record as to why gyneacologist had to damage rectum while performing episiotomy—Patient had to undergo one procedure after another, could not breast feed her baby, could not take solid food for several days resulting weakness had to writhe in agony for several days—Material on record showed that medical practitioner had not brought to her task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and had not exercised a reasonable degree of care—Patient had to spend 108 days in hospitals for a normal delivery with forceps and episiotomy, had to be taken to operation theatre time and again and had to undergo untold suffering—Doctor held negligent in discharge of its duty—Complainant hence held entitled to Rs. 12,86,850 as compensation and Rs. 25,000 as cost. (Paras 62 to 72)
Result: Petition allowed.
Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—This is a case where the mother had gone to a hospital for a delivery (non-caesarian) had to remain in the hospital for three months and eighteen days and had to undergo untold suffering and had to be taken to the operation theatre six times and had to spend lot of money for treatment. A detailed analysis of the case proves medical negligence.
Case of the complainant:
According to the complainant Mrs. S Tamil Selvi wife of Shri L P Sundaramurthy was healthy and had her medical check-up periodically with one Dr. Sooriya Kala at the opposite parties’ hospital for her first confinement. She complied with the instructions of the doctor who assured that the baby was alright. At the beginning of the nine month the doctor directed the complainant to meet her after fifteen days so that she could administer glucose drips to make her get the labour pain to enable her to have a normal delivery. If the normal delivery was not possible the doctor said that she will perform a caesarian operation. The complainant developed labour pains on 19.8.1995 and was admitted in Surya Hospital where Dr. Sooriya Kala examined her and said that the baby was alright and confirmed that she would have a normal delivery. As the complainant got repeated labour pains the doctor prescribed an injection costing Rs.1,500 to facilitate easy delivery and Dr. Udaya Kumar attached to the hospital, gave this injection to the complainant’s spinal cord. Dr Sooirya Kala came to the complainant and pressed her stomach in many ways and compelled her to strain for delivery also threatened that she will perform Caesarian operation if the child was not delivered in the normal course.
3. Thereafter the complainant was taken to the labour room, immediately the child’s head appeared down in the vagina and finally the complainant had a normal delivery. Dr Sooriya Kala took the complainant to the operation theatre in a hurry and inflicted several cuts in her body rapidly without giving any medicine to benumb the pain and later on sutured the cuts. On the tenth day of her stay in the hospital the complainant came to know that Dr Sooriya Kala while cutting her body had cut her rectum tube also. The complainant was suffering from unbearable pain, blood was oozing out from the sutured wounds and the discharge was increasing day by day and emanating foul smell. Not knowing how to tide over the situation and arrest the discharge of the blood. Dr. Sooriya Kala administered glucose drips for sixteen days and made the complainant to starve without food.
4. On 21.8.1995 under the pretext of examining the cause of discharge of blood, the complainant was given anaesthesia and sutures were removed and the rectum was stitched clandestinely, even then the discharge of blood and motion did not abate and the complainant was screaming with pain. Again on 25.8.1995 the complainant was taken to the operation theatre where the earlier sutures were removed and new sutures were made. This time the rectum was stitched twice, in spite of this the doctor could not arrest the stools and blood was oozing out from the wounds resulting in foul smell. The complainant could not bear the acute pain. The complainant and her family members suspected some foul play by the opposite party in taking the complainant to the operation theatre. In the meantime, the complainant lost blood and became very weak and was struggling for life.
5. When questioned, Dr. Sooriya Kala- Opposite party stated that when the child was born baby tore the rectum and came out. This is a blatant lie and is new to medical history. The opposite party’s husband is also a doctor stated that as the child’s head was facing up, the rectum tube was cut. Both the statements are contradictory to each other. As the discharge of blood and stools did not stop, the opposite party stated that she had to cut the stomach open and performed Colostomy and attached a bag for collection of faecal matter after twenty days and if the co
