Back
2010(4) CPR 61
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
S.C. Vyas, President; Smt. Veena Misra and V.K. Patil, Members
Kamlesh Sharma and Anr. —Complainants
versus
Smt Nalini Madharia
and Anr. —Opposite parties
Complaint Case No. 13/2006
Decided on 12. 04.2010
For the Complainants: Ku. Sunanda Dhenge, Authorized Agent.
For the Opp. Parties:Shri Shishir Bhandarkar with Ku. Praveen Arora, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where evidence on record demonstrated that the opposite party doctor has given appropriate treatment to the patient and has tried her level best to save her life, medical negligence cannot be attributed to her.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) —Deficiency in service—Medical negligence—Allegedly committed by OP No.1 in treatment of wife of the complainant—Evidence of the three witnesses of the complainant not disclosing anything to demonstrate that OP No. 1 has committed any negligence in the treatment of the deceased lady—Opinion of three senior experts appointed by the Governor of the State that patient was given appropriate treatment—Decision of conducting hysterectomy was also rightly taken—Any possibility of medical negligence ruled out by the Committee —In the light of principles enumerated by the Apex Court in Kusum Sharma and Others’ case complainant failed to make out a case of medical negligence—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 6 to 10, 13 and 14)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
S. C. Vyas, President— This complaint has been filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 40,00,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. on account of negligence committed in treatment of wife of complainant No.1, against the OPs and also compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for mental agony and loss of consortium and love and affection of mother to complainant No.2.
2. It is not in dispute that wife of complainant No.1 Smt. Priya Sharma was pregnant and visited clinic of OP No.1 for management of her pregnancy. OP No.1 is a Gynaecologist and is proprietor of OP No.2/Nursing Home. The lady was under supervision of OP No.1 and she contacted regularly her Nursing Home for checkup. She went thrice in the month of November, 2003, once in the month of December, 2003, January, February, March and April, 2004 and twice in the month of May, 2004. Her expected date of delivery was also told. Every time when she contacted the Nursing Home, then regular checkup was done including blood test, test of blood pressure and sonography for the purpose of determining the state of foetus. In the month of June; 2004 on 5th she went to Nursing Home at 5:30 a.m. in the morning, when she started having labour pain. After checkup it was informed by OP No.1 to the patient and the attendants that on account of some complications caesarean operation will be required. Consent was given by the patient as well as the attendants and then on the same day, in the morning the lady delivered a female baby by caesarean operation and was shifted to another room. After sometime she started bleeding which could not be controlled by medicines. Blood was arranged and was transfused to the lady. But ultimately it was found that on account of certain complications removal of uterus would be necessary. Then second operation was performed and uterus was removed by emergency hysterectomy. Dr. Sandeep Dave, Surgeon along with OP No.1 conducted the operation. The case of the complainant is that Mrs. Priya Sharma was continuously consulting the Nursing Home of OP No.1 and was under continuous supervision of OP No.1. She went to her as and when called for regular checkup and paid fees every time. The expected date of delivery was told by OP No.1 as first week of June, 2004, but when labour pain started on 5.6.04, then she reached the hospital and got herself admitted. OP No.1 after checkup first told that there will be normal delivery, but later on it was informed that the foetus is somewhat heavy and has turned in opposite direction and therefore operation would be necessary on getting this information, consent was given and operation was performed, but after sometime it was found that condition of Mrs. Priya Sharma was deteriorating. She vomited and was consistently having bleeding. When OP No.1 was called then she told that there is no reason to worry and these are normal features of delivery. Later on, on her direction two bottles of blood were arranged and blood was transfused to Mrs. Priya Sharma. But, even then loss of blood was continuing and then OP No.1 informed the complainant No.1 that for saving life of Mrs. Priya Sharma, it is necessary to perform operation of hysterectomy for removal of uterus. The complainant No.1 was having no other option but to agree with the suggestion and so gave consent. Then, at about 3.30 p.m. in the Nursing Home of OP No.1, Dr. Sandeep Dave was called and then operation was performed. This operation was also performed under supervision of OP No.1, but even after that operation, the condition of Mrs. Priya Sharma remained very poor. On next day, it was found that there was no urinary output and then Dr. Shubha Dubey, Nephrologist, was called, when complainant No.1 asked then no satisfactory reason was given. When urine had not passed even after administering injection and medicines, then also the OP No.1 stated that there is nothing to worry and everything will be alright very so
