BEENA GARG Vs. KAILASH NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, who dismissed the complaint by not holding the opposite party negligent in performance of their duties.

(2.) The case made out by the complainant was that she was admitted in the 1st respondent Nursing Home by the 2nd and 3rd respondents - a husband and wife team - for second delivery of the complainant's baby on 14.6.1996 where after the operation by the 2nd respondent, a male baby was delivered. A few hours after the complainant coming into senses she noticed slight involuntary frequent passage of her urine. The problem persisted and "in spite of this fact being brought to the notice of the respondents the complainant was discharged on 23.6.1996. When the problem of leakage of urine increased immensely, she was re-admitted by the respondents on 6.7.1996 and a catheter was inserted in her vaginal parts and was discharged on 12.7.1996 with an assurance that she will be all right within a week. She was never informed of the cause of the problem. Her situation worsened on account of severe pain and inflamation. At this stage, she decided to have a second opinion, wherein she was diagnosed to have a hole in her urinary bladder called 'utero-vesucal fistula' (U.V.F.), which also resulted in 'Menouria' thereby causing leakage of urine along with menstrual blood at the time of menses. Confronted with the above diagnosis, the respondents for the first time admitted that there was infact a hole in the urinary bladder. The complainant had to undergo another operation at Gauri Hospital having been diagnosed with U.V. Fistula under Cystoscopy on 2.1.1997. In this hospital the complainant was admitted on 18.2.1997 and discharged on 25.2.1997. The alleged medical negligence attributed on the part of the respondent is stated to be that during the operations carried out at the time of delivery of the second child on 14.6.1996, the respondents were negligent which resulted in making a hole in the bladder leading to u.v.f. and Manouria and mental trauma of living with a catheter for sometime for which the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission and praying for award of Rs. 12,35,189/- under several heads.

(3.) On the other hand the case of the respondents is that the complainant has not come up with clean hands and has concealed vital facts. According to them the full facts sequence-wise are that the complainant's first baby was delivered with her consent by the respondents by a Caeserean Section in March, 1993. The complainant was warned to not to conceive for two to four years. Much against this advice, the complainant, who is a lawyer by profession and would be deemed to be well informed - again conceived and underwent first abortion on 3.8.1993, and second abortion on 30.12.1993. Again the complainant conceived on October, 1995 and wanted medical termination of pregnancy. The complainant was admitted on 30.12.1995 with case of threatened abortion and discharged on the same day. The complainant was a regular visitor and had faith in respondents, proof of which is that she underwent her piles operation in October, 1995, carried out by the respondents. For the second delivery, the complainant was admitted on 14.6.1996 and caeserean delivery was done the same day and was discharged on 23.6.1996 with no complaint. She came back with urine infection on 6.7.1996 - admitted in the hospital and after treatment discharged on 12.7.1996. The complainant complained of no problem and had no complaint against the respondents proof of which is that she got her mother-in-law operated upon for renewal of her uterinal tumour by the respondent in August, 1996. As per record of the Gayatri Nursing Home, it has been stated that there was no leakage on 22.7.1996. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital record also state that no U.V. Fitsula diagnosed in the record of Gayatri Hospital, only a query on U.V. Fitsula was raised. It was diagnosed for the first time on 3.1.1997, therefore, the respondents cannot be held responsible for any U.V. Fitsula diagnosed in January, 1997 and the caeserean operation done on the complainant in June, 1996. It is their case that having been clearly warned not to conceive for two-four years after the first delivery, she kept coming back for abortions. Negligence, if any, is of the complainant, who kept conceiving against medical advice and had to undergo termination of pregnancies straining the system. No case of negligence is made out against the respondents.