Indira, Mbbs, Dgo Obstetrician And Gynaecologist vs Muchapothula Nirmala

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 930/2009 - Muchapothula Nirmala Vs. Dr. T. Indira & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ - was awarded.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent got admitted in OP No. 3/Petitioner No. 3 hospital on 26.8.2008. OP No. 1 & 2/Petitioner No. 1 and 2 conducted caesarean operation and complainant gave birth to male child on the same day, but soon after the operation, she developed severe pain in her abdomen because OPs had not taken proper care in conducting caesarean operation. Complainant paid Rs.14,200/ - towards hospital charges and medical charges. It was further alleged that due to severe pain in her abdomen due to post operational complications, she was again admitted in the same hospital on 11.9.2008. OP No. 1 & 2 referred complainant to Apurv Scan Centre on 12.09.2008, who opined that loculated fluid was collected in abdomen. OP No. 1 & 2 expressed their inability for treatment and on their advice; complainant was taken to Sairam Multi Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad on 14.9.2008, where she remained upto 28.09.2008 and incurred expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum demanding compensation of Rs.13,00,000/ -. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and denied all the averments made in the complaint, but admitted admission of the complainant in the hospital and caesarean operation. It was further submitted that OP No.2 did not conduct any operation and only OP No. 1 conducted operation. It was further submitted that complainant never complained pain after surgery, but she was kept in hospital after surgery and was provided due care and was discharged on 5.9.2008. It was further denied that on account of pain, complainant got herself admitted on 11.9.2008. It was also denied that OP No. 1 & 2 referred complainant to Apurv Scan Centre on 12.9.2008 and obtained opinion and after going through the opinion expressed inability to treat and advised the complainant to go to Sairam Multi Speciality Hospital. It was further submitted that after caesarean operation, complainant was taking normal food and was discharged in normal condition. On 11.9.2008, when complainant approached OP, it was noticed that there was distension in her stomach and there was adhesions which was one of the post operation effects which occurs in one person out of one hundred persons due to their personality and ability. It was further submitted that collection of fluid is quite natural in normal deliveries without operation also, and such complications can be treated by conservative management without any operation, but complainant and her attendants insisted for discharge from the hospital, as they decided to go to other hospital and as such, she was discharged on 14.9.2008 at her own will. There was no negligence on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 & 3 adopted same written statement filed by OP No. 1. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint, as there was no negligence on the part of petitioners even then learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint even without any expert evidence; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

IT is admitted case of the parties that complainant got admitted in the hospital on 26.8.2008 and by caesarean operation she delivered male child on the same day, but remained in the hospital upto 5.9.2008. It is also not disputed that she got herself admitted in the hospital again on 11.9.2008, but got herself discharged from the hospital on 14.9.2008. Op No. 1 specifically pleaded that operation was done by only Op No. 1 and not by Op No. 2 and complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the fact that Op No. 2 also conducted operation; even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint against Op no. 2 also.

AS far negligence on the part of OP No. 1 is concerned, complainant has placed reliance on statement of Dr. Goli Prasanna employed with Sairam Multi Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad. She stated in her statement that complainant was admitted in the hospital on 14.9.2008, where she was working as Gynaecologist. In her opinion, cause of Pelvic Abscess was due to infection which may be due to various reasons, may be due to post -operative. She further admitted that Laporotony operation was conducted in their hospital by Dr. Venkat Reddy and she assisted the surgeon meaning thereby, she has not performed operation. She further admitted that reason for infection was not mentioned, as it was not possible to specify the reason for infection. She further admitted that any patient, who undergoes surgery shall generally have apprehension and physical and mental stress. She further admitted that there is possibility of collection of fluids in even normal deliveries, but she denied the suggestion that the complication noticed in the patient could subside by conservative management without operation. She further admitted that no letter was addressed by anybody at the time of admission in their hospital.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner committed negligence in performing caesarean operation on account of which, fluid collected. Perusal of statement of complainant ''s witness Dr. Goli Prasanna reveals that no reason for infection was mentioned by them after complainant was admitted in their hospital because it was not possible to specify reason for infection. She further admitted that any patient who undergoes surgery shall generally have apprehension and physical and mental stress and there is possibility of collection of fluids even in normal delivery. Thus, it becomes clear that fluid can be collected even in normal delivery than merely on account of collection of fluid in caesarean operation, no negligence can be imputed on the part of petitioner and learned State Commission has committed error in holding petitioner negligent in performing operation. No other expert evidence has been produced by complainant and in such circumstances; it cannot be held that petitioner was careless in performing operation. Complainant remained hospitalized from 26.8.2008 to 5.9.2008 and at the time of discharge, no complaint of pain was proved by the complainant. In such circumstances also, petitioner cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service.

COMPLAINANT was admitted in petitioner ''s hospital again on 11.9.2008 and perusal of Apurv Scan Centre report dated 12.09.2008 reveals that she was referred by Dr. T.N. Rao, Petitioner No. 2, but not by Petitioner No. 1. Apurv Scan Centre observed ''''left pelvic loculated fluid collection minimal free fluid in abdomen ''''. As per version of complainant, OP No. 1 & 2 expressed their inability for treatment and on their advice, complainant was taken to Sairam Multi Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad, but this fact has been denied by OPs in their written statement. Dr. Goli Prasanna admitted in her cross -examination that no letter was addressed by anybody at the time of admission in their hospital. In such circumstances, it can very well be inferred that complainant herself decided to go to other hospital and at her request; she was discharged from petitioner ''s hospital on 14.9.2008.

AS far treatment by conservative management is concerned, OP submitted in their reply that treatment by conservative management without operation was possible, but this fact has been denied by Dr. Goli Prasanna and she has submitted that without operation treatment was not possible. Admittedly, no treatment by conservative management was taken by complainant in OP ''s hospital. Had she taken treatment and not cured, she could have filed complaint for alleged negligence in treatment, but without taking treatment and getting discharged from the hospital at her own sweet will, no liability can be fastened on petitioners on account of negligence in the treatment. In the light of above discussion, it becomes clear that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and awarding compensation and impugned order is liable to set aside.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 19.01.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in Appeal No. 930/2009 - Muchapothula Nirmala Vs. Dr. T. Indira & Ors. is to set aside and order of District Forum dismissing complaint is affirmed with no order as to costs.