LAL MAMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. MINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the opposite parties in OP 1020/95 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The 1st opposite party is under orders to pay Rs. 16,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application as pecuniary damage and Rs. 50,000 towards general damage for mental harassment, pain, etc. And also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the husband of the complainant for mental harassment meted out to him. The appellants are the hospital and the Doctor/Gynaecologist who attended the complainant.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that she was then aged 22. She got conceived in December 1994. Since January 1995 the complainant was under observation of the 2nd opposite party/Gynaecologist at the 1st opposite party hospital. The delivery date was mentioned as 28.9.1995. She was undergoing monthly checkup at the 1st opposite party/hospital. On 16.8.1995 she was admitted at the hospital and discharged on 19.8.2005. On 30.8.1995 also she was admitted on account of Blood Pressure (BP). The 2nd opposite party/doctor examined her every day twice and another doctor i.e., Dr. Achapillai used to examine her on certain days. On 4.9.1995 on the evening at 6 p.m. Dr. Achapillai examined her. The complainant was having pain at the time and Dr. Achapillai had instructed the nurses to take her to the labour room and do the needful. On the same evening at about 6.45 p.m. she had pain and matter was intimated to the nurses who told her that there is nothing wrong. Thereafter at about 8.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. the nurses were informed that the pain has increased but they assured that there is nothing wrong. The nurses did not examine her or take her to the labour room or ascertain the foetal heart sounds or inform the duty doctor or the 2nd opposite party. After 10 O'clock the pain decreased. At 5.30 a.m. also the nurses told her that there is no problem with her. But at about 6.15 a.m. the nurses told her that there is something abnormal and shifted her to the labour room and informed the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party came and examined her and told her that the child is dead. At 9.30 a.m. she underwent surgery. She was discharged on 16.5.1995. It is the allegation that had opposite parties bestowed proper care the child would not have died. It was a male child. It was on account of the negligence of the 2nd opposite party and other staff of the 1st opposite party that the death of the child was occasioned. For treatment expenses she spent Rs. 16,000. The above sum and compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 was claimed. If at the time when the complainant had informed the nurses about the pain and had they examined the heart sounds of the baby the child could have been saved. The 2nd opposite party had told the complainant that had she been informed in time surgery could have been conducted earlier and the child saved. The 2nd opposite party did not examine the complainant in the evening on 4.9.1995 and did not enquire anything about her although she was continuously under the treatment of the 2nd opposite party.

(3.) THE 1st opposite party, the hospital has filed version denying the allegations altogether. The complainant has been given all attention by the 2nd opposite party/Gynaecologist and other staff members. On 19.8.2005, it was found that the complainant is having high Blood Pressure and she was admitted and her BP and the foetal heart sounds of the baby were continuously monitored. The services of the doctors are available in the hospital during 24 hours. There was no negligence at all. The complainant was having Pregnancy Induced Hypertension (PIH). It is a very dangerous situation. It was on account of proper treatment at the hospital that the particular illness did not result in bleeding, etc. Even now cent -per -cent successful treatment for the particular illness is not available. The complainant was made to undergo scanning, and it was found there was an infarct in the placenta. The above indicated the risk to the child. She was discharged on 22.8.1995 with the high blood pressure fully under control. She was admitted on 30.8.1995 again for high blood pressure. The BP rate and the foetal heart sounds were monitored hourly, day and night and bystander lady even objected alleging that the same is causing sleep disturbance to the complainant. On 4.9.1995 as the 2nd opposite party was on leave and in the evening Dr. Achapillai a Senior Gynaecologist examined the complainant and it was found that she was not having any problems. The nurses on duty checked the condition of the complainant and the heart sound of the child in the womb and noted in the case sheet. It is denied that the complainant was having severe pain in the evening, etc. It was only at 5.45 a.m. on 5.9.1995 the duty nurses found that the foetal heart sounds are not audible. The matter was informed to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party immediately reached the place and as per the directions of the 2nd opposite party the complainant was subjected to the surgery. She was kept at the post -operative ward for 24 hours to assure that she is safe. It would have been on account of PIH and infarct in the placenta that the child died. It was on account of the close attention given to the complainant that she did not suffer from bleeding , etc. There was no lapse in attention or care on the part of the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party hospital has got 160 beds with all specialties and it is a charitable one.