M A NATARAJAN Vs. DAMODARAN T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in OP No. 143/2000 dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, first Opposite Party Dr. M.A. Natarajan, fifth Opposite Party Dr. K. Rajagopalan and sixth Opposite Party Dr. K.K. Gokvindan preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint directing Opposite Parties No. 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 to pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the filing of the Complaint till the date of realization, with a specific direction to realize the entire amount from the 7th Opposite Party namely the Insurance Company. It was also observed that the Insurance Company can claim reimbursement of the amount in excess of policy from the other Opposite Parties.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the wife of the first Complainant and the mother of the second Complainant namely Smt. Geetha (hereinafter referred to as "the Patient"), aged 32 years was pregnant and was taking treatment from the first Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Treating Doctor"). The expected date of delivery was given as 24.04.2000. As advised by the Treating Doctor, the Patient was admitted to the Second Opposite Party Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Palat Hospital") on 21.04.2000. As the Patient did not have any signs of pain she was put on Pitocin Drip on 25.04.2000 without any result. On 27.04.2000 she showed some signs of mild pain and was once again given Pitocin Drip commencing at 8 a.m. It was averred that at about 12.45 p.m. the Treating Doctor left the Hospital promising to come back soon and left the Patient assuring that the delivery would take place the same evening. At about 3 p.m., the Patient developed severe pain and she was taken to Labour Room by the nurses, who tried to extract the child by vacuum extraction method by in the absence of the Treating Doctor. The First Complainant was anxiously waiting outside the labour room and thereafter was informed by the Treating Doctor and the Hospital that the Patient required an emergency surgery and since the operation theatre was currently engaged, the Patient was being discharged to be taken to the fourth Opposite party Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Balaji Hospital.").

(3.) It was pleaded that the first Complaint was surprised to see the Patient's condition and as there was nobody else to help him, he requested Palat Hospital Authorities to provided an ambulance to take his wife to Balaji Hospital as the Patient was not in a condition to stand up and walk but the first Complainant was informed that the ambulance was not necessary and the Patient was sent in an auto-rickshaw, making her walk from the labour room upto the portico helped by the nurses. The first Complainant and the Patient reached Balaji Hospital and she was admitted there and the Patient was taken to the operation theatre in a wheel chair for a surgical extraction of the baby. The first Complainant was asked to arrange four bottles of A+ blood. It was averred that the blood group of the Patient was AB+ and the Complainant after informing the Hospital Authorities procured AB+ blood. It was stated that had be not mentioned the blood group to the Hospital Authorities they would have given A+ blood to the Patient. By the time the First Complainant returned with the required blood to Balaji Hospital, he was informed that the blood was already given but both the mother and the child could not be saved. It was averred that the sixth Opposite Party did not hand over the bodies to the First Complainant till the hospital charges were paid. Thereafter on payment of charges, the Hospital was in a hurry to get the dead bodies removed even without conducting the post-mortem.