SABITA Vs. SHREEPAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these two cross Revision Petitions, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), is to the order., dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal Nos. 1143 and 1347 of 2009, Revision Petition No. 692 of 2010 is by the Opposite Party in the complaint, whereas, Revision Petition No. 3013 of 2011 is by the Complainants. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 25.3.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad in Complaint No. 180 of 2008 (for short the District Forum"). The District Forum, while holding that the Opposite Party i.e. the treating doctor, was deficient in rendering service in treating late Smt Srilaxmi, had directed her to pay to the Complainants a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 5,000 towards cost of litigation.

(2.) Late Smt. Srilaxmi was the wife of Complainant No. 1 and mother of Complainants Nos. 2 and 3. The Opposite Party in the Complaint, an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist by profession, is running a Nursing Home under the name and style of Kallianpurkar Nursing Home, at Hubli. On 4.1.2008, Late Smt. Srilaxmi was admitted in the Nursing Home around 1.00 p.m. She was instilled Cerviprime Gel to induce Labour pains. She was told that the Labour pains would start in 3-4 hours time and the delivery would be normal. Around 7.00 p.m., labour pains started and she was taken to the labour room. At about 7.35 p.m., she gave birth to a female baby. It was a normal vaginal delivery. After the delivery, at about 8.30 p.m., she was shifted to a room. It is the case of the Complainants that at the time of delivery the Opposite Party was not present and the delivery was conducted by the Nurses and when she was being shifted to the room, the first Complainant, his mother and sister and an Advocate friend, noticed blood stains on the garments worn by her. On enquiry, they were told that the bleeding would stop shortly. They requested the Nurses to call the Opposite Party so that the patient could be examined and treated properly. However, the Opposite Party could not be contacted by the staff as she was not available in the Nursing Home. At about 9.00 p.m., Smt. Srilaxmi started turning cold. Around 10.15 p.m., the Opposite Party came to the Hospital but by that time Smt Srilaxmi was unconscious and her body had turned pale. She was taken to the operation theatre but within a. short time, was declared dead. When asked about the cause of death, the Opposite Party stated that it was due to Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE), whereas, according to the attendants, she had died because of excessive bleeding, i.e., Post-Partum Haemorrhage (PPH). Alleging negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainants filed a complaint in the District Forum, praying for compensation of Rs. 18,00,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. and costs of the proceedings.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the Opposite Party. In her written version, while admitting that late Srilaxmi was her patient and her delivery had taken place on 4.1.2008 at the Nursing Home, it was denied that she was not present at the time of delivery. It was pleaded that there was no PPH at any point of time and it was only at about 11.00 p.m. that Srilaxmi had suddenly developed hypoxic shock; her blood pressure was not recordable and pulse was feeble; necessary treatment in the form of cardiopulmonary resuscitation was done, including intubation but despite treatment she died suddenly due to AFE. It was also pleaded that after the death, the attendants were advised post mortem of the body, but it was refused.