Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and S.M. Kantikar, Member
Dr. Prabha G. Nair and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Sri. Mohanan and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.4891 of 2012
(Against order dated 29.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 666 of 2003 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram)
Decided on 20.05.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Sheji P. Abraham, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Specialists must make early diagnosis in order to avert complications.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Medical services—Medical negligence—Death of newly born as well as her mother—District forum passed award of Rs.1,60,000/- with 10% interest and cost of Rs.4,000/-—Death of deceased was due to lack of proper care and diagnosis of crucial complication—OP -1 is Specialist as Gynecologist and also few doctors of in OP-3 hospital including CMO have seen patient but nobody suspected commonest cause of distension of abdomen by hemoperitoneum—Early diagnosis was needed and would have saved life of patient—OP should have taken second opinion to know cause of distension of abdomen from any other specialist or from Medical College which was located in their own city—But, OPs failed to diagnose rupture of uterus and treated casually for five days—Similarly, death of baby is due to non prudent approach of OP-1—As baby was of IUGR and patient was anemic still OP-1 did not prefer elective Cesarean Section operation and allowed vaginal delivery—Vacuum failure and forceps application in this patient was a wrong decision—There is deficiency in service by OPs leading to death of mother and baby—Revision petition dismissed with punitive cost of Rs.1,00,000. (Paras 12 to 18)
S.M. Kantikar, Member—The Revision Petition is filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (The Act) against the final order dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Trivandrum, Kerala state (herein State Commission) in Appeal No. 666/03.
2. Facts in brief
The Petitioners were opposite parties in original compliant in District Forum file No 83/1997 and the Respondents were Complainants as husband and two children of deceased Shobhana. The Petitioners/Opposite Parties (OP) No 1 is Gynecologist and the Petitioner/OP No 2 is Chief Medical Officer and Petitioner/OP No 3 is Administrator of the Hospital. The patient Sobhana wife of Respondent/Complainant undergone delivery on 04.12.1995 at night 12.45 p.m. The duty doctor informed the OP-1 that delivery by vaccum extractor has failed. By 09.00 p.m. the OP-1 conducted episiotomy followed by forceps delivery and a still born baby was delivered. The baby was died by cord compression. Immediately after the delivery the patient had profused bleeding along with expulsion of placenta and due to fatal injury to uterus. The patient Sobhana died on 8/12/1995 at 5.20 pm .The death of male baby and Sobhana was due to reckless act o f OP-1. The OPs did not inform the critical condition of Sobhana relative even after repeated enquiries. Further OPs did not allow the relatives to transfer the patient to the medical college hospital. Subsequently on 08.12.1995 due to severe low blood pressure the patient died at 05.00 p.m. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint No.432/95 registered in the local Police Station under Section 304 of IPC. The Complainant also filed the Consumer Complaint No. OP/83/1997 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alapuzha (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) claiming an amount of Rs.4, 75,000/- with interest and cost for having lost the affectionate and dedicated wife and children lost their mother. The opposite parties filed a joint version and contented that there are complicated questions of fact and law which need elaborate enquiry and matter is to be decided by Civil Court.
3. On the basis of evidence and the Post mortem report the District Forum held OP 1& 2 for deficiency in service as they have failed to diagnose cause of profuse bleeding earlier and their treatment fell below the standard of medical practice and not taken reasonable care during conducting delivery causing the death of the patient i.e. the wife of Complainant No.1 and mother of Complainant No.2 & 3. The District forum passed an award of Rs.1,60,000/- with 10% interest from the date of petition and cost of Rs.4,000/-.
4. The Session Court acquitted the first Petitioner for the charge of Section 304A of IPC. Against the acquittal a Criminal Appeal No. 203/08 was preferred by complainant before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The Appeal was dismissed on 08.08.2012.
5. The Petitioner preferred an appeal No.666/2003 before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as State Commission).
6. State Commission after hearing the counsel of both parties and on the basis of post mortem report ascertained the relevant important point as cause of death of Sobhana ; the relevant para reproduced as follows;
“ 9. Postmortem examination on the body of Shobhana was conducted at the Medical College, Alappuzha on 08.12.1995 itself. Ext. P2 is the copy of the postmortem certificate. The opinion as to cause of death given is that the death of Shobhana happened due to complications following rupture of gravid uterus. Of the ante mortem injuries, the 3rd injury noted in Ext.R4 is important. It reads:- “Rupture of uterus 15× 10cms obliquely placed involving its full thickness including peritoneum on the posterior surface of the lower segment of uterus communicating at its lower part with the injury no.2, it edges were thinned out with blood clots, dark red in colour.” Injuries 2 & 4
