M JEEVA Vs. R LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 10th July, 1992 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in O.P. No. 183 of 1991. That complaint was filed by the present Respondent Smt. R.Lalitha and in it the Opposite Party was M.Jeeva, who is now appellant before us. Hereinafter the parties will be referred by their original nomenclature. By the impugned order the State Commission has awarded Rs. 2,50,000/-as compensation to the Complainant plus Rs. 2,000/- which had been paid by the Opposite Party as advance at the time of her admission in the Opposite Party's hospital.

(2.) IN the counter the Opposite Party admitted that the building in which the operation is being done, belongs to her and she is running the hospital with the help of Consultant Physicians and Surgeons and services of only qualified doctors are utilised and they attend the hospital regularly throughout the day. She averred that she is a duly registered nurse and mid-wife to practice mid-wifery as provided in the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Mid-wives Act, 1926 (as amended). She is also qualified and registered under the Indian Nursing Council Act and she is a registered nurse to practice nursing. She never made any attempt to make believe people that she is a doctor. She is living in that place, practising nursing and mid-wifery. The Complainant who has apprehension of her (i.e. Opposite Party's) qualifications had all the comfort and medical assistance at the time of her first delivery which took place on 21st April, 1989 by means of caesarean operation. The operation was performed by Dr. Gurumoorthy and Dr. Gnanavelu. During the caesarean there was certain amount of foul smelling liquor which indicated infection and the Complainant was advised not to have a child at least for 2 years, because it was found that haemoglobin percentage was unsatisfactory and she should wait for the improvement of the blood haemoglobin and the healing time of the suture in the uterus, which will be longer in her case might facilitate her to avoid complication. On that date in question le, 21st October, 1990 the Complainant came to the Hospital at about 7.00 p.m. A qualified doctor was present at that time. She was advised to go to the hospital or nursing home in the town as she needed a ceasarian once again. Because the pregnancy had ensued within one year the doctor present thought it fit that she may be sent to the hospital situated in the town and if further complications might arise she could be better attended by the doctors who were in the city limits. The Complainant had preferred the City Hospital because Dr. Gurumoorthy who performed the first ceasarian on her was working in hospital and the Complainant wanted that the second ceasarian should also be performed by the said doctor. Further the Complainant was of a rare blood group RH-Negative and the Opposite Party though fit that in the event of any blood transfusion at the time of ceasarian it would be conducive for her to have blood at the City Hospital where it could be easily procured. There was no male member with the Complainant when she had come on that date at 7.00 p.m. and she was waiting for a male member to accompany her to the hospital. As it was getting late the Opposite Party and the doctor present thought fit to send her in their car to the City Hospital at the earliest as there would be sufficient time to prepare her for the caesarian. The timely medical attendance and the conveyance given to the Complainant by the Opposite Party enabled the Complainant to have a safe caesarian operation in the City Hospital. It was the further case of the Opposite Party that she had not collected any fees and the service rendered by her was free of charge. The Complainant remained in the hospital only for about two hours while waiting for a transport after being advised to go to City Hospital. There is no negligence or deficiency of medical services on the Opposite Party's part. The Opposite Party is not at all responsible for the events which took place in the City Hospital. Negligence if any could be attributed only to the said hospital where the Opposite Party was not all involved. Other allegations of the Complainant were also denied by the Opposite Party.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that Opposite Party i.e. M.Jeeva now Appellant is a qualified mid-wife and is registered under Tamil Nadu Nurses and Mid-wives Act (III) of 1926 and there is no prescribed standard of service that is expected from a midwife and that any decision taken by her according to the exigencies of the case cannot amount to deficiency in service as she alone will be the best person to take decision in the interest of patient and the child. We do not want to dwell upon this point such as it is not the case of the Appellant that she rendered any kind of medical service to the Complainant on 21st October, 1990. The story as given by her in the Counter has already been narrated above in detail. According to that story the Complainant had remained in the hospital only for two hours while she was waiting for transport and for some male member to accompany her to the City Hospital after being advised by the Opposite Party to go to the City Hospital. In the memorandum of appeal the Appellant had slightly changed her version. She has stated that on 21st October, 1990, the Complainant had come to her Hospital with complication of threatened rupture of the uterus and thus there was nothing wrong or unnatural on the part of the Appellant herein to have referred the Respondent-Complainant to another doctor for better facility and treatment particularly when it was the choice of the Complainant herself that she should be attended by Dr. Gurumoorthy, who was available at that time only in the Civil Hospital.