Back
TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Meena Ramanathan, Incharge President and
V.V. Seshubabu, Member (Judicial)
K. Hari Prasad and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Taraporewalla Nursing Home
and Anr. – Opp. Parties
C.C. 248 of 2013
Decided on 4.3.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47 – Services – Medical negligence – maternity – Compensation – Award of – The opposite parties blame the attendants in wasting valuable time to procure the required blood for transfusion. Instead, the opposite party hospital could have been better equipped. When this is an anticipated emergency, a nursing home should have the necessary facility to manage the eventuality instead of blaming the attendants of wasting 35 minutes – In the absence of timely and appropriate action, the young patient died because of PPH. In the developed world PPH is a largely preventable and manageable condition. It is pertinent to mention that the deceased was not suffering from any complications during her pregnancy. No such negative reference is made – The tragic death of the young mother can never be sufficiently quantified monetarily and the loss of a mother’s love for her child can never be replaced. The complainant has lost the companionship of his wife early in their married life – In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.43,57,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization. [Paras 10 to 19]
Result: Compliant Allowed.
ORDER (ORAL)
Meena Ramanathan, Incharge President—This is a complaint filed u/s.17(1)(a)(i) of C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties and direct them:—
(i) to pay compensation of Rs.99,00,000/- and
(ii) to pay costs of Rs.50,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:—
The marriage of the complainant no.1 took place on 15.7.2010 and his wife since conception of pregnancy took treatment with opposite party no.2 in opposite party no.1 Hospital at East Maredpally. On 10.8.2013, complainant’s wife was admitted in opposite party no.1 hospital for her delivery and opposite party no.2 attended on the patient. The complainant’s wife delivered a female baby by normal delivery on 11.8.2013 at 8.58 a.m. On the same day at about 9.20 a.m. she developed bleeding problem i.e. Post Portem Hemorrhage (PPH). Opposite party no.2 informed that the bleeding was minor and nothing to worry and also informed that hysterectomy may be needed as a last resort, for which, the complainant no.1 accepted. Complainant no.1 requested opposite party no.2 that he can fetch blood, if necessary or the patient may be shifted to any Super Specialty Hospital. Since he and his wife are software engineers and they are eligible for reimbursement upto Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively from their employer i.e. Infosys Ltd.
On 11.8.2013 at about 10.20 a.m. on request of the opposite party no.2, to get blood as early as possible from the Blood Bank at Sunshine Hospitals, Paradise, Secunderabad, the complainant no.1 went to the said hospital within 10 minutes and requested to give 2 units of packed cells and 2 units of fresh frozen plasma and the hospital authorities took nearly 35 minutes time for grouping of the blood/matching of the blood and handed over packed cells by collecting Rs.5,200/-. The complainant no.1 rushed back to opposite parties by 11.25 a.m. where he was informed by opposite party no.2 that the pulse rate of the patient was very low due to excess bleeding and her condition was serious and there was no chances for recovery of the patient. The blood brought by complainant
no.1 was not even transfused and the patient was declared dead at 11.45 a.m. on the same day.
It is submitted that the premature death of his wife occurred only due to lack of necessary care and skill exhibited by the opposite parties. As per the Antenatal Record, the expected date of delivery was 25.8.2013, but as per the advise of the opposite party no.2, the patient was admitted in the hospital on 10.8.2013. Opposite party no.1 hospital was not properly equipped with necessary infrastructure to meet the emergency and complicated cases and opposite party no.2 failed to properly visualize the situation of the patient after development of PPH and was negligent in not even conducting the grouping of the blood which was routine in nature and there was delay in summoning the blood immediately after development of PPH. Opposite party no.2 specifically instructed the complainant no.1 to get the blood from Sunshine Hospitals only, which is far from opposite party no.1 hospital, although there are about 10 blood banks within ½ km. of opposite party no.1 hospital. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party no.2 did not shift the patient to any other corporate hospital, though the complainant no.1 informed them that he is capable of bearing the necessary expenditure apart from reimbursement facility.
It is submitted that due to negligence of opposite parties in not properly treating and controlling the PPH of the patient, resulting in her premature death, not only amounts to deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice. Because of the pre-mature death of his wife, the complainant no.1 has been subjected to severe mental agony apart from irreparable financial loss and his minor baby girl i.e. complainant no.2 is subjected to permanent loss of her maternal love and affection apart from care which is irreplaceabl
(1) PPH – In the absence of timely and appropriate action, the young patient died because of PPH.(2) PPH – In the developed world PPH is a largely preventable and manageable condition. It is pertinen....
To prove medical negligence, the claimant must show a breach of duty causing harm, supported by cogent evidence. The standard of care equates to the competency expected from an ordinary practitioner.
Medical negligence established due to lack of adequate post-operative care leading to complications.
Medical negligence is established when healthcare providers fail to adhere to the standard of care expected, leading to severe patient harm; such negligence allows for compensation under consumer pro....
(1) Non Supply of Medical Records – deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties is glaringly apparent with regard to non-supply of copies of the medical records, as sought for by the complainants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
