K SRINIVAS Vs. A PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K . Srinivas, Petitioner herein, has filed the present revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), rejecting the complaint of medical negligence against Dr. A. Prabhakar, Respondent herein.

(2.) PETITIONER , who was the original complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), had submitted that his late wife Smt. K. Sridevi (hereinafter referred to as the Patient) aged about 23 years had been visiting respondent -Doctor for periodical check -ups after having become pregnant. On 5.8.2002 she developed labour pain and was admitted by her family members in the respondent's hospital where she delivered a stillborn male child at 6.00 p.m. due to the folding of umbilical cord around the child's neck. Immediately after delivery, Patient experienced Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPH) i.e. bleeding through the vagina and family members as per advice of Respondent donated blood for transfusion. Despite this, PPH could not be controlled. Petitioner, who reached the Respondent's Hospital from Hyderabad at about 10.00 p.m., requested the Respondent to permit him to shift his wife to a better medical facility at Hyderabad but Respondent delayed giving this permission till 11.15 p.m. on the ground that it could be controlled in Respondent's Hospital. Petitioner admitted the Patient, who was accompanied by Respondent's compounder alongwith facility for blood transfusion, to Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital in an unconscious and critical condition at 1.00 p.m. on 06.08.2002 with bleeding and in spite of resuscitative and medical measures undertaken in that hospital, she expired about 30 hours later at 7.00 a.m. on 07.08.2002. Petitioner contended that both his wife and child lost their lives because Respondent did not take reasonable care nor exhibit reasonable skill in conducting the delivery and controlling the PPH. The placenta was not completely expelled and D&C for controlling the bleeding was not conducted. Respondent also caused delay in giving permission to shift the Patient to a better equipped hospital, which proved fatal. Petitioner, therefore, issued a legal notice to Respondent seeking compensation for the medical expenditure and for the loss of his wife, who had just got admission in MBA course and there were chances of her securing a lucrative job had she been alive. Petitioner above all would suffer a life -long loss for the loss of his spouse. On not receiving a satisfactory response, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and requested that the Respondent be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum from 15.12.2003 till date of realization, Rs.10,000/ - as cost and any other relief as deemed appropriate.

(3.) RESPONDENT on being served filed a counter reply in which he denied the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service. It was stated that all necessary care was taken in the treatment of the Patient and necessary diagnosis and examinations conducted right from the time she was visiting the Respondent till when she was admitted in the hospital on 05.08.2002. On that date her blood pressure, heart, lungs and other vital organs as also that of the fetus were normal. The progress of labour was monitored very closely and all these facts were recorded in the case sheet, which also included the details of the clinical examination and the monitoring during the course of the pregnancy. The delivery was normal with a spontaneous Episiotomy and a live male child with umbilical cord round the neck was delivered at 6.00 p.m. The placenta and membranes had also expelled entirely. The Episiotomy and cervical tears were sutured with chronic catgut and because there was moderate bleeding vaginal packing was done. All necessary care in resuscitating the new born, who had Tachycardia and Apnea, was also started, which included mouth to mouth respiration, oxygen inhalations, injection etc. but unfortunately the child could not be saved because of the trauma caused due to the umbilical cord round the neck. It was further contended that since Patient had vaginal bleeding, blood was transfused, after which the flow of blood was somewhat restricted. When the Patient complained of breathlessness and vaginal bleeding again started and continued in gushes, rigorous treatment which included oxygen inhalation and also administration of various injections, which included Methergine, Prostadine etc., as also blood transfusion was started and continued. Respondent denied that he refused permission to the Petitioner to shift the Patient. However, he admitted that because of the pressure exerted by the Petitioner and other relatives, he permitted the Patient to be shifted to Hyderabad at 11.15 p.m. Respondent also made available a compounder alongwith necessary medical assistance to enable the Patient to undertake the long journey to Hyderabad. It was specifically contended that at the time of her being transported there was some improvement in the Patient's condition. Respondent further stated that PPH is an unfortunate complication of delivery, which can occur despite all possible care having been taken and for which necessary medical treatment as per standard procedure was given. It was also contended that though the Respondent's Hospital had adequate facilities, when the Petitioner and other relatives insisted on the Patient being shifted, they were advised to take the Patient to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda, which was best hospital in the District and was at a lesser distance from Hyderabad, to which the Petitioner did not agree. Respondent contended that the Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital authorities in Hyderabad did not indicate that when Patient was shifted there was any negligence on the part of Respondent and the allegation made that the PPH occurred because the placenta was not entirely expelled after the delivery was found to be incorrect. It was also specifically contended that Hysterectomy and D&C are not the procedures to be undertaken for controlling bleeding. All necessary measures to check PPH were taken as per standard medical procedure.