Chandramma vs DINESH RAO

THIS appeal is by the complainant in Complaint No. 70/2004 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Davangere against the Order dated 22.3.2005 dismissing the complaint. The respondents in the appeal are the O.Ps. before the District Forum.

THE complainant''s case in brief is that she was admitted to Aswini Clinic run by O.P. 2 for delivery on 14.8.2002. At the time when she was admitted, she was keeping good health and was expecting normal delivery. THE complainant contends that the O.Ps. conducted cesarean at about 7.05 p.m. on the same day in spite of the fact that a normal delivery was expected. THEy did so with the intention of extracting the money. The complainant has further contended that having conducted cesarean the O.Ps. did not take care to put stitches properly for the operation site and that has led to bleeding and septicemia. The complainant contends that she approached O.Ps. 1 and 2 once again 5 days after discharge and complained that bleeding still continued and at that time the O.Ps. abused her and her husband and told her that the wound would heal gradually. It is contended that bleeding continued even after one month and the wound did not heal and so the complainant went to O.P. 3 for further treatment and treatment given by O.P. 3 also did not succeed in healing the wound and stopping bleeding. Thereafter, the complainant was admitted to Navodaya Hospital, Davangere, where Dr. Manjunath treated her as in-patient from 30.11.2002 to 18.12.2002 on which day she was discharged from that Hospital. Follow-up treatment continued till 18.1.2003. The complainant contends that even thereafter she was suffering physically due to the negligence committed by the O.Ps. She also contends that she had to spend more than Rs. 50,000 for treatment and hence the complaint.

O.Ps. 1 and 2 contested the case in filing version. The case against O.P. 3 Dr. Girijamma was not registered as the complainant did not reveal any cause of action against her. O.Ps. 1 and 2 contended before the District Forum that the complainant had leaky membrane even before she was admitted to their Nursing Home. They contended that delivery was normal, but there was third degree of perennial tear and stitches were put and the patient was discharged on 16.8.2002 with an advice to come for further consultation and follow-up treatment 3 days thereafter. They have contended that the complainant came only after 5 days and also did not take follow-up treatment regularly as advised which has resulted in the complications. They have denied that there was any negligence on their part.

BOTH sides adduced their evidence before the District Forum and the District Forum upheld the defence version that the delivery was normal and there was third degree perennial tear and that the admissions given by the complainant herself, in her cross-examination, revealed that she failed to take follow-up treatment regularly as advised by the O.Ps. 1 and 2 and that has resulted in the complications. The District Forum has also come to the conclusion that Dr. Girijamma and Dr. Manjunath who have treated the patient subsequently have not stated in their evidence that there was any negligence committed by O.Ps. 1 and 2 in the matter of treatment. We have gone through the records of the District Forum. We have also heard arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the contesting parties in the Appeal. On going through the evidence on record, we do not find anything wrong with the conclusion drawn by the District Forum. The District Forum, in its well discussed order, has concluded that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that there was any negligence committed by the O.Ps. We fully agree with the conclusions drawn by the District Forum. The appeal, therefore, fails. In the result, we pass the following Order : ORDER The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.