SHAKILA SATHANANDAM Vs. S S KODMANI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint arising out of a medical negligence. In this case only the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have filed their version. The 1st opposite party did not choose to file any version. She filed a petition to condone the delay of 232 days in filing the version. This petition in M.P. No. 58/2002 was dismissed on 12.3.2003. Then an application was filed in M.P. No. 195/2004 to set aside the order dated 12.3.2003. This petition was returned as there was a delay of 433 days in representation. To condone the delay in representation, a petition was filed in M.P. No. 35 of 2005, which was dismissed on 1.3.2005. The 1st opposite party is, therefore, set ex parte. On behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 though version was filed, they have not further participated in the inquiry.

(2.) THE complainant's case in short is as follows : The complainant consulted the 1st opposite party since there was postponement of her menstrual period. On the advice of the 1st opposite party, she had a urine test done, which was positive thereby meaning that she was pregnant. Since they did not want any child, the complainant and her husband approached the 1st opposite party and requested the 1st opposite to do Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP). The 1st opposite party prescribed 'Cyclenov -P' and 'Cyclenov -E' and requested the complainant to wait till 20.10.1998. In spite of the said treatment, the complainant did not have any mentruation. Therefore, she again approached the 1st opposite party who prescribed 'Dependal -M'. The complainant was also advised to be admitted in the hospital of the 2nd opposite party. Accordingly she got admitted on 30.10.1998. On 31.10.1998 MTP was performed. The complainant was prescribed 'Doxy I' and 'Proxvon'. She was further advised to come for review on 6.11.1998. The complainant, in the meanwhile, was having bleeding from uterus per vagina off -and -on and informed the 1st opposite party about the same. She consulted the 1st opposite party but the bleeding did not stop even after taking medicine prescribed by the 1st opposite party. On 21.11.1998 the complainant appeared for re -checkup before the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party diagnosed it as DUB (Dysfunctional Uterus Bleeding) and prescribed her 'Kerutin -C'. She also asked the complainant to take 40 tablets of 'Regstrone'. This tablet resulted in clotting of blood in the uterus. The 1st opposite party came and saw the complainant only after 10 hours of her admission in the Nursing Home and again diagnosed her condition as DUB and advised her to get discharged on the next day. But on 27.11.1998, there was again bleeding. The complainant developed chest pain, stomach pain and a reeling sensation in the head. Her pulse rate went down. She tried to talk to the 1st opposite party, but she could not. As her condition was bad, she was taken to Padma Clinic and Nursing Home where a scan was taken. The scan report showed that it was an incomplete abortion and the doctor there performed surgery to remove the remnants and the next day she was discharged. Thus, according to the complainant, the 1st opposite party was negligent in prescribing Cyclenov -P and Cyclenov -E for more than 39 days. These tablets will not be effective for bringing out an abortion after 39 days of conception. There was carelessness and negligence in not removing the contents of uterus and failed to remove the remnants while conducting the MTP. The 1st opposite party negligently diagnosed the cause as DUB. She failed to exercise due care and caution and failed to visit the hospital. She failed to conduct proper physical examination. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service. The complainant, therefore, prays for a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/ -.

(3.) AS stated already, the 1st opposite party has been set ex parte. The 2nd opposite party has stated as follows : The 2nd opposite party is a leading Nursing Home in the city. It is a Premier Health Care Centre. The complainant was admitted in 2nd opposite party Nursing Home for an MTP procedure, which was performed by the 1st opposite party. Again on 25.11.1998 she was readmitted at 11.30 a.m. There is no allegation made against this opposite party. Even the complainant's conditions were not known to the 2nd Opposite party after discharge. Necessary facilities and care were provided during the stay of the complainant. Hence, the 2nd opposite party is not liable.