Back
2009(2) CPR 331
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Valsala Sarangadharan Member in-charge of President and S. Chandra Mohan Nair, Member
Thomaskutty Sebastian —Appellant
versus
Dr. Sunny Mathew —Respondent
Appeal No. 211 of 2003
Decided on 31.1.2009
For the Appellant:S. Reghukumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Suresh Kumar and D. Kavitha, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where doctor suspected ectopic pregnancy but did not take all possible efforts to rule out the same and recommended for D&C, it was negligence and doctor was liable to be compensate for death of patient.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Medical negligence—Complainant’s wife was diagnosed as case of tubal pregnancy and was being attended by OP No. 1—Tube was found burst and emergency operation was taken up—Patient died—Compensation claim alleging negligence on part of OP—1st OP had suspected ectopic pregnancy and had observed that ectopic pregnancy was to be ruled out—No steps were however taken in that direction—After having suspected ectopic pregnancy the OP should have taken all possible efforts to rule out the same and then should have recommended for
D&C—Non-advice of laproscopic test was sheer negligence and deficiency in service—Apart from negligence and deficiency in not advising proper test to rule out ectopic pregnancy there was no other negligence—Deceased was 35 years of age—Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded with interest at 9% p.a. from date of complaint. (Para 11 and 12)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Valsala Sarangadharan, Member-in-Charge of President—By the order dated 13.9.2002 the CDRF, Kottayam had dismissed the complaint in OP 253/1998 and it is aggrieved by the said dismissal that the present appeal is filed by the complainant calling for the interference of this Commission as to the correctness of the order passed by the Forum below.
2. The complainant’s case in brief before the Forum are that the complainant’s wife became pregnant in the month of March 1996 and was consulted with the 1st opposite party who was working at Marian Medical Centre, Pala and it was suggested to have moderate rest. On 11.4.96 the complainant and his wife consulted the opposite party and was directed for taking scan as there was slight bleeding. On the same day itself the petitioner took his wife to the 1st opposite party along with scan report whereupon the 1st opposite party told the petitioner that though there was bulging on fallopian tube there was no chance for tubal pregnancy and that it was only incomplete abortion and hence there was no need for any fear. The opposite party instructed the complainant and his wife to wait for 7 days. As there was heavy bleeding on 15.4.l996 also the wife was taken to 1st opposite party who on examination told them that abortion was completed and there was no difficulty. In the mean time certain medicines were prescribed by the 1st opposite party. It is the further case of the complainant that on 18.4.1996 there was great pain for his wife and as the pain did not subside he took his wife to the 1st opposite party who assured the complainant that it was only completion of Abortion and prescribed tablets for the wife. However, as the bleeding continued he took his wife again on 23.4.1996 to the 1st opposite part who directed for further scanning and on 25.4.1996 scanning was done and the report was produced before the 1st opposite party who in turn informed the complainant that there was tubal pregnancy and the bleeding was due to deposit of waste hormones in the uterus. D and C was also advised by the 1st opposite party to be done at Holy Family Hospital which was owned by the 2nd opposite party. On 26.4.1996 the wife of the complainant suffered greater pain and was taken to the 1st opposite party. As the patient was not able even to move about the 1st opposite party examined the patient in the car and informed the complainant that it was tubal pregnancy and as the tube had burst an emergency operation was needed and asked the complainant to take her to Holy Family Hospital. Though the complainant was ready to take his wife to the nearby Marian Medical Centre, the 1st opposite party insisted him to take her to the Holy Family Hospital where no facilities required for the operation of his wife were available. However, at the insistence of the 1st opposite party, the patient was taken to Holy Family Hospital and she was taken to the operation theater who was fully conscious and was talking normally. The complainant’s grievance is that after half an hour the 1st and 2nd opposite parties came out of the operation theatre and asked the complainant to bring ambulance for taking his wife to the Medical College Hospital or some other hospital. Though she was taken to the nearby Cherupushpam Hospital, on reaching the hospital, the hospital authorities told him that his wife was dead. Alleging negligence, deficiency in service and other aspersions, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 as compensation as his wife was only 35 years old and was a Post Graduate Diploma holder at the time of death.
3. Resisting the complaint, the 1st opposite party filed version contending that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the issues involved require elaborate evidence and that there was no deficiency in service on his part. Hence it was prayed that the complaint was only to be dismissed. However it was admitted by him that the
