IMPORTANT POINT
Doctors must show utmost attention towards patients.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this petition there is challenge to order dated 27.1.2011, passed Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhudhacaud, Thiruvamamthapuram (for short, ‘State Commission’).

2. Brief facts are that respondent/complainant had to undergo hysterectomy to save her life and also lost the chance of having a male child on account of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioners/opposite parties (husband and wife) who are running a private hospital. It is alleged that respondent for her second pregnancy first consulted Dr. Tessy Jose, the Gynecologist of Christuraja Hospital, Kuthuparambu, who at the 9th month of pregnancy after examination told her that the foetal growth is normal and she can have normal delivery. On 28.6.1998 at about 12 P.M, respondent started developing signs of labor and was brought to the hospital of the petitioners. Petitioner no. 2, gynecologist after examining her, advised that it is the first stage of labor and asked her to get admitted when pain increased. Petitioners’ hospital was preferred as it was situated very near to respondent’s house. On 29.6.98 at about 5.30 A.M, respondent was admitted at the above hospital by respondent no.1. At the time, she was having labor pain. Respondent and her relatives requested petitioner no. 1 to call the gynecologist. Petitioner no. 1 told them that since respondent is not having true labor pain, he will call the gynecologist when it is required. At 10.30 AM, the pain increased and again the request to call the gynecologist was not complied with. It is petitioner no. 1 who attended the delivery and he applied much force to take out the baby. At last on 11.20 A.M, the baby was taken out and it was told that there is no problem. Immediately thereafter, there was profuse bleeding. Even then the gynecologist was not called. In spite of repeated requests, only on 12.30 hours petitioner no. 2/Gynecologist came and expressed astonishment on seeing the condition of the respondent. By that time, respondent was completely exhausted by bleeding. The request to refer to a higher center was also refused. Finally by 2.10 P.M, petitioner no.1 agreed to shift the respondent to Nirmala Hospital, Iritty in his own ambulance. At Nirmala Hospital, respondent was subjected to an emergency hysterectomy. She had to be administered 9 bottles of blood and was discharged after 12 days. Respondent is having only 2 daughters and in fact she wanted a boy. Thus, respondent has alleged gross negligence on the part of the petitioners and claimed Rs. 3.25 lakh as compensation and refund of medical bills etc.

3. Petitioners in their written version have admitted that respondent had consulted them at their hospital on 28.6.1998 and the expected date of delivery was 4.7.1998. She also wanted to undergo Post Partum Sterilization (PPS) after the present delivery. She was advised to report when pain starts. When respondent enquired as to the availability of Petitioner no. 2/Gynecologist, she was told that any one of the petitioners would be conducting delivery as petitioner no.1 is also well experienced and also told that the P.P.S. would be conducted by petitioner no.2.

4. It is further stated that on 29.06.1998 in the morning, respondent reported with early labour pains and was seen by petitioner no.1 who was on duty at that time. Unfortunately on that day petitioner no. 2 was laid down with fever and was not in a condition to attend to her routine hospital work. This fact was conveyed to the respondent and her husband and it was informed to them that the delivery would be conducted by petitioner no.1 and only in case of any dire emergency, petitioner no. 2 would be called. The option to go elsewhere was also given to the respondent as she was only having early labour pains. But respondent and her husband expressed their agreement at this arrangement. Neither respondent nor her husband insisted on the presence of petitioner no. 2 t