NIVEDITA SINGH Vs. ASHA BHARTI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20 -12 -2008 of the District Consumer Forum, Allahabad whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed. She filed her complaint with the allegations that she was admitted to Ghazipur Women Hospital at 10.00 p.m. on 26 -08 -2004 and her parents Sri Balvant Singh Gahmari and Smt. Veena Singh were there in the hospital. Dr. Asha Bharti was the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital. Dr. Renuka Sinha, Gynaecologist -1 and Dr. Tarkeshwar,Gynaecologist -2 attended her after she was admitted in the hospital and there were two nurses attending her, namely Smt. Prayambada Rai and Veena Bharti. Sri Balvant Singh Gahmari deposited the requisite service charges and the prescribed fees although receipts were not issued.

(2.) ON the night between 26/27 -08 -2004 the complainant delivered a female baby at 3.15 a.m. and it was a normal delivery with there being no complication on that score. However, subsequent to ?the delivery the complainant had bleeding through her delivery canal where a cut by way of very minor surgery was made so as to facilitate the delivery. She pleaded that she was not properly attended to either by the doctors or the nurses. Her mother's request and that of the other women of the neighbourhood who had come to help her repeatedly made to the doctors for immediate medical help to stop bleeding did not yield any result. Her father, who reached the hospital in the morning alongwith other persons contacted Dr. Renuka Sinha, Dr. Asha Bharti as also Dr. Tarkeshwar, requested for an early treatment so that his daughter may be relieved of the excessive bleeding. When further pressure was mounted upon the authorities, the complainant was taken to the operation theatre, where she in presence of all the aforesaid three doctors was made unconscious and both her legs were hung in two separate string rings. On account of her legs being hung higher to her lying body level she could not get normal flow of blood towards the toes of her feet, as a consequence the first and second toes of her right foot got blackened with their tissues having gone dead. On account of there being excessive bleeding the complainant felt paucity of blood in her body, therefore, some blood was administered to her at 11.00 a.m. on 27 -08 -2004 but soon after the already affected toes reacted having developed gangrene. After her discharge from the hospital on 01 -09 -2004 she was taken to Varanasi and admitted to Shail Nursing Home. Dr. Shail Singh treated her toes which had developed gangrene on account of the negligence of the doctors of Ghazipur Women Hospital but she could not recover. The complainant was then taken to Saifdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 18 -09 -2004 where Dr. A K Singh, Head of Department (Orthopaedics) and Director suggested amputation of the two toes. She was then taken to Ganga Ram Hospital where Dr. Rajiv Parikh confirmed the advice of Dr .A K Singh. Eventually Nivedita Singh was admitted in Shri Mool Chand Kharaiti Ram Hospital where her first and second toes of her right feet were amputated. Her parents had to incur a sum of Rs.14,00,000/ - on her treatment. She had also undergone lot of pain -physical and mental both and since it was all on account of the negligence of the doctors of the Ghazipur Women Hospital she impleaded the three doctors and two nurses as opposite parties in her complaint and claimed a sum of Rs.19,50,000/ - as compensation.

(3.) THE doctors and nurses filed their joint written statement and denied the allegations of medical negligence on their part or any deficiency in service. They expressed ignorance about amputation of the complainant's toes and also pleaded that the post delivery treatment of the complainant did not have any complications of the kind as alleged in the complaint. At the time of her being discharged from the hospital there was no indication of her feet having suffered loss of supply of blood. As it was a normal delivery, she was discharged as requested by her father. As a matter of fact, the complainant suffered some injury in her toes prior to her being admitted to hospital for delivery .The bleeding at the site of delivery was stopped by performing minor surgery and a bottle of blood to recoup the blood paucity was also administered. The complainant's allegation of her legs being hung in the air was totally wrong. The father of the complainant was asked to arrange for medicines which were not available in the hospital. Dr. J P Pandey, the surgeon was called who had examined the complainant's toes with injury subsisting from before. As regards the allegation of there being no blood supply to her toes it was pleaded in the written statement that there was no medical history of a patient's toes suffering from shortage of blood supply in case of her being in the position of lithotomy. If something wrong happened to her after she was discharged from the hospital, the opposite parties could not be held liable for such consequences. As a matter of fact, the father of the complainant who is an advocate politician got annoyed with Dr. Renuka Sinha on 27 -08 -2004 when she expressed her helplessness to concede to his request to pay for the medicines purchased by him from the local market. It was for this reason that he misbehaved with Dr. Renuka Sinha and eventually got her and other opposite parties dragged into this, litigation.