Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Shri R.S. Sharma, President, Shri D.K. Poddar, Member and Shri Narendra Gupta, Member
CHUDAMANI SAHU - Appellant
Versus
RAMKINKER HOSPITAL - Respondent
Complaint Case No.CC/05 of 2016
Decided on : 21-04-2017
Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate, for the Complainant-Chudamani Sahu; Shri N.K. Shrivastava, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 1-Ramkinker Hospital; Shri J.K. Agrawal, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 2-Kanwar Hospital; Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 3-Shri Balaji Super; Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 4-The Oriental Insurance; Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 5-The United India Insurance Company Limited
Headnote:
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 17 - COMPLAINT FILED BY HUSBAND OF DECEASED WIFE AGAINST HOSPITALS FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE RESULTING IN DEATH OF WIFE - HUSBAND ALLEGED THAT HOSPITALS FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER CARE AND TREATMENT TO HIS WIFE DURING PREGNANCY AND DELIVERY, RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE UNBORN CHILD - HOSPITALS DENIED ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMED THEY PROVIDED APPROPRIATE CARE - COMMISSION EXAMINED MEDICAL RECORDS, TESTIMONIES, AND EXPERT OPINIONS - FOUND THAT HOSPITAL 1 FAILED TO CONDUCT PROPER TESTS AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE CARE DURING PREGNANCY, HOSPITAL 2 FAILED TO TIMELY DIAGNOSE AND TREAT THE DECEASED'S CONDITION, AND HOSPITAL 3 FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER POST-OPERATIVE CARE - HELD THAT HOSPITALS 1 AND 2 WERE LIABLE FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - AWARDED COMPENSATION TO THE HUSBAND - DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HOSPITAL 3.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's wife, Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu, was pregnant and received treatment from various hospitals during her pregnancy. The complainant alleged that Hospital 1 failed to conduct proper tests and provide adequate care during the pregnancy, Hospital 2 failed to timely diagnose and treat the deceased's condition, and Hospital 3 failed to provide proper post-operative care, resulting in the death of his wife and unborn child. The hospitals denied the allegations and claimed they provided appropriate care.
Finding of the Court:
The Commission examined medical records, testimonies, and expert opinions. It found that Hospital 1 failed to conduct proper tests and provide adequate care during the pregnancy, Hospital 2 failed to timely diagnose and treat the deceased's condition, and Hospital 3 failed to provide proper post-operative care. The Commission held that Hospitals 1 and 2 were liable for medical negligence and awarded compensation to the complainant.
Issues: 1. Whether Hospital 1 was negligent in failing to conduct proper tests and provide adequate care during the pregnancy? 2. Whether Hospital 2 was negligent in failing to timely diagnose and treat the deceased's condition? 3. Whether Hospital 3 was negligent in failing to provide proper post-operative care?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A hospital has a duty of care to provide proper medical treatment to its patients, including conducting necessary tests and providing appropriate care during pregnancy. 2. A hospital is liable for medical negligence if it fails to timely diagnose and treat a patient's condition, resulting in harm to the patient. 3. A hospital is liable for medical negligence if it fails to provide proper post-operative care to a patient, resulting in harm to the patient.
Final Decision: The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Hospital 1 and Hospital 2 to jointly and severally pay compensation to the complainant. The complaint against Hospital 3 was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sharma, President—The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs seeking following reliefs :-
(a) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the complainant, towards the amount spent in treatment of his wife as well as other miscellaneous expenses.
(b) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs), which will be spent, to look after and to foster three years son Krishna Kumar, because the wife of the complainant died.
(c) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) towards loss of consortium.
(d) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards compensation for mental agony because his three years son Krishna Kumar is continuously suffering mental agony.
(e) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards cost of litigation and advocate fees and to grant any other relief, which this Commission deems fit.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that on 12.09.2012, the wife of the complainant Smt. Hiteshwari Sahu delivered first son Krishna Kumar. Thereafter when she again became pregnant, then during her pregnancy, the complainant had taken his wife from time to time to Panth Shree Grindh Muni Naam Sahab Smriti Chikitsalay, Kabir Dharmnagar, Damakheda, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), which is 8 kms away from his Village. The blood & urine of wife of the complainant, was tested and after conducting sonography and other tests, the complainant was informed that the condition of the mother and child, is normal. After conducting above tests, the complainant was directed to again bring his wife for check up after one month. Accordingly, the complainant had taken his wife for check up to the above hospital and after conducting all tests, it was informed that the condition of the mother and child is normal and the complainant was directed to again come for check up after one month. Accordingly, when the complainant had taken his wife to the above hospital for check up, the condition of the mother and child, was found normal. The doctor, who was present in the hospital informed the complainant that earlier she delivered a child through cesarian operation, whereas in the above hospital there is no facility to deliver child through cesarian operation, therefore, the complainant has to take his wife in such hospital at the time of delivery where facility of cesarian delivery, is available. On 24.08.2015, prior to delivery, the complainant had taken his wife to O.P. No.1 hospital for check up and examination where after conducting check up and examination, it was informed to the complainant that now there is some time in delivery, but there was no expected development in the child and the reason for it is that the wife of the complainant is blood anaemic. Medicines and injections are being given and course of 10 injection has been prescribed. The above injections be got administered by the complainant to his wife from any nearby doctor for 10 days i.e. one injection in one day and the complainant followed the above direction. On 17.09.2015, all of sudden, the wife of the complainant suffered labour pain, therefore, the complainant had taken her to O.P. No.1 hospital and with the help of medicines and injection, the pain was stopped. After examination, it was informed that there is one month time in delivery and the probable date of delivery is 12.10.2015. The mother and child both are alright, therefore, the complainant was directed to take his wife her home. The complainant had taken his wife to Village Devri, which is two kms away from Bhatapara, with an intention that in case of delivery, no problem would be occurred because the hospital is not far away. On 19.09.2015, the wife of the complainant was suffering from severe pain, then at about 6.00 A.M., the complainant had taken his
