A KARUNANITHY Vs. PADMA L RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainants case is as follows : The second complainant is the daughter of the first complainant. When the second complainant was pregnant, she was examined by the first opposite party, who confirmed the same and directed the 2nd complainant to come for regular periodical checkup. On 4.8.1997 after conducting tests, the first opposite party informed the second complainant that due date of delivery will be on 9.2.1998. She was asked to come once in a week in the 9th month. Accordingly the second complainant went her for checkup. On 9.2.1998, the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party hospital and met the first opposite party, who prescribed Primiprost tablet and directed her to take one tablet in the afternoon, one tablet in the night and another tablet in the next day morning. She was not admitted in the hospital. As advised, the 2nd complainant took one Primiprost tablet around 4.30 p.m. on 9.2.1998. Around 9.30 a.m. she began to vomit, then she immediately contacted the first opposite party over phone. The first opposite party advised her to watch and if pain continues and increases, then admit herself in the 2nd opposite party hospital. The pain continued and gradually increased around 12.00 midnight. The 1st complainant contacted the first opposite party over phone and informed about the pain and vomiting whereupon the

(2.) ND complainant was advised to get herself admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital. The 1st opposite party promised that she would see the 2nd complainant immediately on admission. Accordingly the 2nd complainant admitted at about 12.50 a.m. and the 1st opposite party was informed about the admission. The staff of the 2nd opposite party hospital made preparation seeing the condition of the 2nd complainant to attend the delivery. But the 1st opposite party did not come to the hospital though she instructed through phone the staff to give some injections to reduce the pain. Instead of coming to the hospital and to watch the babys movement in the womb physically and personally, she through the phone prescribed injection to reduce the pain. She avoided to come to the hospital, failed to attend examine the 2nd complainant who was having labour pain from 9.30 p.m. on 9.2.1998. The hospital did not allow the 1st complainant and his son -in -law to stay in the hospital stating that only female members will be allowed. They further informed that the pain and vomiting was due to the tablet taken by her. Therefore, the 1st complainant and his son -in -law left the hospital. The pain did not subside in spite of injection. The 2nd complainant pleaded the hospital staff to contact the 1st opposite party and also requested to do caesarian operation since she was unable to withstand the pain. But the staff refused to contact the 1st opposite party. They also did not allow the mother of the 2nd complainant to contact the doctor. The 1st opposite party came to the hospital around 6.30 a.m. on 10.2.1998 and after examining the 2nd complainant, the 1st opposite party gave Primiprost tablet which the 2nd complainant vomited. Then she was put on drips. Realizing her mistake in not coming to the hospital in the night and on her mistake in not doing caesarian operation, she made preparations to do a caesarian operation and contacted the anaesthetist and a doctor for operation. The 1st opposite party waited for their arrival and went inside the operation theatre. After some time the staff informed the 1st complainant that the delivery was over. When the 1st complainant wanted to see the baby, he was informed that the baby was still in the operation theatre. But the 1st complainant forcefully entered the theatre and saw to his dismay and shock that the new born baby was under oxygen. Without even getting consent of the complainant, the 1st opposite party made arrangements to send the baby to the Child Trust Hospital at Nungambakkam. Only when the ambulance came from the Child Trust Hospital, the complainants came to know about the same. The first opposite party failed to take reasonable care and caution before prescribing Primiprost tablet. She is fully aware that the 2nd complainant is asthmatic and her father had a cardiac asthmatic. She is also aware that before using the tablet, the uterine activity, foetal status, progress of cervical dilation should be carefully monitored. The 1st opposite party ought to have seen that in certain circumstances, it should be avoided with symptoms of pre -existing foetal distress and oral administration of the said tablet will cause vomiting. The 1st opposite party ought to have admitted the 2nd complainant in the hospital and then prescribed the tablet. If she had done that, then she could have closely monitored the 2nd complainant and the baby in the womb. That procedure was not followed. Since the tablet was taken in the house, the after -effects of the said tablet could not be monitored and hence it is resulted that the 2nd complainant started vomiting and it had weakened the patients body and mind as well as the baby in the womb. The 1st opposite party failed to come and see the 2nd complainant in the 2nd opposite party hospital after her admission. Without knowing the history of the tablet she was advised by the 1st opposite party to take the tablet in the night. Because of failure to take the above precautions, the baby consumed meconium which resulted the baby being admitted the Childs Trust Hospital where it died. This all happened because of the first opposite partys wilful negligence, carelessness and indifferent attitude. The 1st opposite party failed to come and see the 2nd complainant. There was no duty doctor in the 2nd opposite party hospital. There were no qualified nurses. Thus, there is deficiency in service which has resulted in the baby swallowing meconium through the mouth and nose and finally died at Childs Trust Hospital on 18.2.1998. Even on 9.2.1998, there was failure to do scan to know about the childs position. The 2nd complainant pleaded with the 1st opposite party that she cannot bear with the labour pain and willing for caesarian operation. They never bothered about her feelings and sufferings. As no anaesthetic doctor was available, the 1st opposite party simply waited for their arrival to do caesarian operation. When they arrived, she tried to operate but since the child had already moved, she used forceps and the baby was brought out in such a condition. The 2nd opposite party hospital is a 24 hours without any duty doctors or qualified nurses. The 1st opposite party was also not present. The 1st opposite party without personally seeing the 2nd complainant directed the 2nd opposite party hospital staff to give voveran injection to stop the labour pain solely because it was midnight and she wanted to avoid coming to hospital. She having given Primiprost tablet on 9.2.1998 to induce the labour pain and prescribed voveran injection to stop the labour pain. The opposite parties were fully aware that meconium went inside the lungs and stomach of the baby. They kept the baby for more than three hours in oxygen and sent the baby to the Childs Trust Hospital with a view to escape from the consequences of their action. There is a failure on the part of the opposite parties to take immediate care and caution. They failed to admit her as soon as he complained of pain. There is failure to do the caesarian operation. There is a failure to take scan. There is negligence in prescribing the Primiprost tablet as a result of this the child died. Apart from that the 2nd complainant was put to severe mental agony and physical strain. Therefore, the complainant pray for a compensation of Rs. 10,56,960 and a cost of Rs. 5,000. 2. The opposite parties have filed a version pleading as follows : The complainants are not consumers. The 2nd complainant consulted the 1st opposite party on 9.2.1998 in her hospital. She examined the 2nd complainant and found her to have clinically normal with adequate liquor. Hence she prescribed Primiprost tablet for priming of cervix so that the induction of labour could be done subsequently. As a precautionary measure, she was also advised to get admitted herself in the hospital if she had pain, draining or bleeding. Hence, the 1st opposite party opined that it was not necessary to admit the 2nd complainant in the hospital at the point of time namely on the forenoon of 9.2.1998. The 2nd complainant contacted the 1st opposite party in the late hours of 9.2.1998 over phone and informed that she had developed pain and immediately she had advised her to be admitted in the hospital of the 2nd opposite party. She was admitted at 1.00 a.m. on 10.2.1998. On admission, the 1st opposite party was contacted by the 2nd hospital staff and the 1st opposite party gave necessary instructions to the duty staff for preparing the 2nd complainant for delivery. As the preliminary preparations were completed for delivery, the 1st opposite party came to the 2nd opposite party hospital on 3.00 a.m. on 10.2.1998 and examined the 2nd complainant and found her just developing labour pains and foetal heart rate was normal. Her general condition was good. Since she was already in labour, the 2nd complainant was advised to walk around and rest in between. The mother of the 2nd complainant was present in the hospital all along with the 2nd complainant. The labour pains were only mild. The 1st opposite party informed the 2nd complainant and her mother that the delivery will be after 7.00 a.m. Her general condition, uterine contraction and foetal heart rate regularly monitored. The allegation that she did not come to the hospital and that she was negligent, lethargic, wilful and deliberte is falsehood. The 1st opposite party did the best for the 2nd complainant. The allegation that the hospital staff did not allow the husband of the 2nd complainant and the 1st complainant to stay in the hospital is because it being an exclusive maternity hospital as there was other pregnant patients the males are not allowed. However, the mother of the 2nd complainant was with her througout. It is not true to say that the 2nd complainant was informed that the pain and vomiting was only due to the taking of tablet. The 1st opposite party visited the hospital at

(3.) THE Points : The 2nd complainant rests her case mainly upon two grounds. The first ground of allegation made is that the prescription of Primiprost tablet has brought about this calamity and it was not indicated considering the condition of the 2nd complainant. The next allegation is that immediately on admission of the 2nd complainant in the hospital, the 1st opposite party did not come and examine her. But she took her own time and saw her only at 9.30 a.m. on the next day. It is also stated that when the 2nd complainant reported about pain even on 9.2.1998 in the morning she ought to have been immediately advised to be admitted in the hospital and the 1st opposite party omitted to do so. It is also stated that there were only untrained nurses and staff in the hospital. The request of the 2nd complainant to carry out a caesarian operation for delivery of the child was not listened to by the 1st opposite party and the staff. These are the other allegations upon which this edifice of complaint has been laid.