KATRA SATYANARAYANA AND ORS S/O SITHATAMAIAH ADVOCATE NANDIGAMA POST Vs. LAKSHMI NURSING HOME AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.6.2006, passed in First Appeal No. 200 of 1998 by the A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ' the State Commission') whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal filed by the complainants.

(2.) The relevant facts for the disposal of the revision petition are that Smt. Rajani Kumari, since deceased, (hereinafter referred as 'the patient') underwent first Cesarean delivery (LSCS) in the year 1990. During second pregnancy, she was under the care of Dr. K. Vara Prasad/OP 2 and Dr. K. Padmaja/OP 3 at Lakshmi Nursing Home (OP 1) since March 1995. On 20.11.1995, she developed labour pains and got admitted in OP 1/Nursing Home. It was alleged that OP failed to conduct blood tests including Blood Sugar, Urine Tests, Blood Grouping, Cross matching etc. The nursing home does not have proper facility for cesarean section and blood was not kept ready before operation. The doctors without performing any investigation, conducted the vaginal delivery, which resulted into death of the patient. It was further alleged that infusion of Inj. Syntocinon was given at the higher rate of 40 drops per minute, but in the case-sheet, it was recorded as 20 drop per minute. Because of high rate of Syntocinon drip led to rupture of the uterus through previous surgical scar which caused profused blood loss. The baby was delivered at 3.30 p.m. but the bleeding did not stop inspite of injection Methergine. OPs 2 and 3 did not attempt to investigate the cause of bleeding. Thereafter, at 4.40 p.m., the blood was sent for grouping and cross matching, the relatives were kept in the dark that the patient was in need of 'A' Negative blood. Due to non-availability of 'A' Negative blood, 'A' Positive blood was transfused to the patient without consulting any specialist, which further caused renal failure. The OP has not mentioned record of urine output, subsequently, patient developed shock and then she never recovered. Due to alleged deficiency in service and medical negligence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur.

(3.) The OP filed the written version and denied about the negligence on their part. The OP submitted that the patient did not approach OP at initial stage. There was no negligence while conducting delivery. The blood was needed because there was bleeding after delivery and due to paucity of 'A' Negative blood, the patient was transfused 'A' Positive blood. It was necessary to save the life of the patient. Throughout the delivery, the doctor and staff had monitored the entire process.