S SUJATHA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Mrs. S. Sujatha (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 25/2002 decided in favour of Dr. Lalitha and three others (hereinafter referred to as Respondent Nos. 1,2, 3 and 4 respectively), who were the Respondents.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Petitioner who was the original complainant before the District Forum was a paying outpatient in the Railway hospital from 27.3.2000. She was examined on 15.11.2000 and told that she was likely to deliver her baby by 22.11.2000 by Respondent No. 1 Petitioner developed labour pains on 20.11.2000 and came for admission to the Respondent/hospital at about 10.45 p.m. According to her, there was no doctor and she was admitted in the hospital by the duty nurses who locked her in the labour room and went to sleep. Although, Petitioner was shouting because of the labour pain, no one came to her assistance till 7.40 a.m. the next day i.e. on 21.11.2000 when Respondent No. 1 examined her and without giving any further information conducted a caesarean operation by which a still-born baby was removed from the Petitioner's uterus. According to the Petitioner, if she had been given proper medical treatment by the doctor from the time of admission, she would have not lost her child. Petitioner, there fore, sent a letter followed by a lawyer's notice to the Respondents on ground of medical negligence and deficiency in service and claimed Rs. 5 lakh towards compensation. However, she received no reply because of which she filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Respondents be directed to pay Rs. 4,90,000 towards compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation cost.

(3.) Respondents denied the above contentions and stated that one Dr.Mallika was very much present at the time of the patient's admission on 20.11.2000 at which time she was in mild labour pain and her blood pressure, pulse rate was also normal and, therefore, in preparation for delivery the duty staff placed the patient in the labour room since she did not require immediate presence of a gynaecologist/ doctor. However, progress of labour pain, foetal heartbeat, etc. was regularly monitored throughout the night and the foetal heartbeat was normal upto 6.30 a.m. and it was only at about 7.00 a.m. that the foetal Heartbeat was found absent and a scan was immediately done confirming inter-uterine death of the foetus. Thereafter, all efforts were made by the Respondent/Doctor and her assistant for a normal delivery by doing an artificial rupture of membrane and a co-duty doctor was asked to stay with the patient to watch over her. Only when the vaginal delivery was not possible and after obtaining the consent of Petitioner's relatives, lower caesarean section (emergency) was conducted and the; dead foetus was removed. The cause of death was because of the umbilical cord around the neck of the foetus which was also confirmed by cord lilubrin (jaundice). Thus, there was no negligence at all since all care and precaution were taken during the labour and later to save the life of the Petitioner.