INDUMATI vs SHYAMALA A. MASURKAR

THE complainant in this case has prayed for compensation of Rs. 9,60,000 from the O.Ps. alleging medical negligence on their part. THE complainant''s case may be briefly stated as follows: 1. THE complainant is a resident of Hulloli Village in Hukkeri Taluk in Belgaum District living with her husband and children. In April 2002, she was pregnant for 4 months and there was bleeding. She went to the Hospital of O.Ps. 1 and 2 at Gokak on 5.4.2002 for consultation and treatment. O.P. 1 being the senior amongst, advised blood test and also prescribed some medicines. On 12.4.2002, the complainant got the blood test done. Since bleeding persisted she went to O.P. 2 Hospital on 13.4.2002 with the report of the blood test. Since O.P. 1 was not there she met O.P. 2 who prescribed tablet ''Rovamycin Forte'' for 21 days. It is contended that the complainant did not take the said medicine immediately as she thought of taking the same only after consultation with O.P. 1 and therefore she again went to Gokak on 15.4.2002, on which day O.P. 1 prescribed injection ''Gravidin'' in addition to tablet ''Rovamycin Forte''. It is contended that on that day O.P. 1 also told the complainant to take the medicine as per the prescription given by O.P. 2. THE complainant contends that she took ''Gravidin'' injection and tablet ''Rovamycin Forte'' the same day night. THEreafter, she experienced the severe burning all over her body and pain in the abdomen. Immediately thereafter, she tried to contact O.P. 1 and she was told that O.P. 1 was out of station for one week. Early morning on 16.4.2002, the complainant got herself admitted in K.H.I. Hospital, Ghataprabha, where abortion took place.

THE complainant has further contended that on 9.5.2002, she went to O.P. 1 and asked her as to why the abortion took place. O.P. 1, after checking the complainant and after scanning her again advised her for blood test and also advised her to continue tablet ''Rovamycin Forte'' in addition to Pyraffin, Azee & ''Tancodep'' tablets for about a month. THE complainant further contends that as per the advise of O.P. 1, she continued the Tablets. On the day next to taking of the said tablets, she developed fever and pain in both eyes and throat. On the 3rd day, there was red rashes all over the body with pus formation and swelling. She was immediately taken to K.H.I. Hospital where she was admitted as an in-patient. Doctors there told her that there was reaction of the said medicines and she was also advised to go to K.L.E. Hospital, Belgaum. THE complainant contends that she tried to contact O.P. 1 over telephone regarding the reaction she developed. She was told that O.P. 1 was not in station. THE complainant requested O.P. 2 to come and check her and to advise which she did not oblige. THE next day, the complainant was admitted to K.L.E. Hospital, Belgaum. By that time, the pus had started oozing out. THE complainant was kept in Intensive Care Unit for about one month. In spite of best efforts by the Doctors at K.L.E. Hospital, the reaction did not subside. It is further contended that the complainant again contacted O.P. 1 over telephone and told O.P. 1 about the complications developed because of the medicines prescribed. It is further contended that O.P. 1 did not however go to K.L.E. Hospital to check the complainant and to prescribe remedies in spite of request over telephone. THErefore, complainant sent her husband to O.P. 1 and O.P. 1 promised that she would go to K.L.E. Hospital to see the complainant and to decide the next course of action which promise was not kept up. THE complainant further contends that by the end of one month of admission in K.L.E. Hospital, though the pus dried up swelling over the eyes did not recede. THE Doctors of K.L.E. Hospital discharged the complainant with an advice to come to the Hospital every alternative day for follow-up treatment. THE complainant followed that advice for about 15 days. Swelling over the eyes did not recede. She was again admitted as an in-patient in that Hospital for 20 days; no improvements in the eyes; the eye lids and eye balls started becoming smaller. THE Doctors in K.L.E. Hospital advised her to go to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. THE complainant went to Hyderabad and got herself admitted in the said Hospital as in-patient for 5 days. THEre was no improvement in the eye sight in spite of treatment for 5 days. THE Doctors there told her that the reaction which had developed still continued and there are no chances of improvement. THE complainant contends that ultimately she lost her eye sight completely and she became totally blind. The complainant contends that as a result of blindness, she is unable to attend to her daily routines herself and has to depend on others throughout her life and is also unable to attend to her minor children. She further contended that she was expert in suing ladies and children garments and she has been earning about Rs. 1,500 per month and on account of the blindness, she is unable to do that work and thereby she is deprived of that income. She has, therefore, claimed a total compensation of Rs. 9,60,000 which includes Rs. 1,25,000 under the head loss of income. She had contended that apart from physical suffering and loss of sight her husband has suffered loss of money and also has suffered mental agony.

The O.Ps. filed common version admitting that the complainant had come to their Hospital on 5.4.2002 and contended that on examination she was found to be 16 weeks pregnant; there was no bleeding, routine blood and urine examination was done followed by a Sonography. The complainant was treated as a case of threatened abortion with cervicitis. She was given injection Gravidin following which she had no complaint and she went home with an advice of complete rest and a syrological blood examination to rule out Toxoplasmosis as a cause for recurrent abortion. It is contended that the complainant''s history revealed that she had two normal deliveries, both living, followed by one medical termination of pregnancy at 5 months and one 5 months spontaneous abortion with bleeding from 3rd month. The O.Ps. contended that the complainant did not get the test done immediately, but the same was done 7 days later. They have contended that husband of the complainant came with Toxoplasma report on 13.4.2002, on which day O.P. 1 was not in town and O.P. 2 who is a qualified Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, who was incharge of the Hospital, advised capsule ''Rovamycin Forte'' which was the only drug that can be given for treatment of Toxoplasis during pregnancy. They have further contended that on 15.4.2002 the husband of the complainant approached O.P. 2 and told that complainant was under treatment at K.H.I. Hospital, Ghataprabha for vaginal bleeding. O.Ps. have further contended that the complainant, thereafter, came to him only on 9.5.2002, on which day she was advised to take pyralfin for treatment of Toxoplasmosis as she was not pregnant then. O.Ps. have further contended that the complainant did not contact the O.Ps when she developed rashness or any other complication. They also contended that the complications arose only on account of 3 days delay in taking the complainant to K.H.I. Hospital for treatment of the so called reaction. They have further contended that if there was any pus formation, that was only due to secondary infection which occurs due to poor hygienic conditions or neglect on the part of the patient or due to delay in treatment or due to improper treatment. They have denied that they are responsible for any such complication or for abortion. They have denied deficiency of service.

IN the course of inquiry, the complainant filed her own affidavit and subjected herself for her cross-examination. Exts. C1 to C84 were marked for the complainant. On the side of the O.Ps., O.P. 1 filed counter-affidavit and subjected herself for her cross-examination. Ext. R1 to R25 were marked for the defence. We have heard the arguments on both sides. The material point arises in consideration in the case is whether the complainant has proved that there was negligence on the part of the O.Ps. in treating the complainant. The main charges leveled against the O.Ps. are: (1) that the abortion resulted due to improper treatment given by the O.Ps. and; (2) that as a result of the improper treatment given by the O.Ps., the complainant lost her eye sight.

THERE is no dispute that the complainant first approached O.P. 1 on 5.4.2002 with the complaint of bleeding. On that day, the O.P. 1 checked her and advised blood test and prescribed some medicines. O.Ps. have contended that after clinical examination and after ascertaining the personal history of the complainant, she was treated as a case of threatened abortion with cervicitis and she was given injection ''Gravidin'' after which the complainant had no complaint and she went home. She was advised to have serological blood examination to rule out Toxoplasma which examination she got done only after 7 days and report of Toxoplasma was brought by her husband on 13.4.2002, on which day O.P. 2 perscribed Rovamycin forte as treatment for Toxoplasmosis during pregnancy. The learned Counsel for the O.Ps., in the course of his arguments sought to rely upon certain medical aurhorities in support of his contention that injection Gravidin is the universally accepted medicine to prevent abortion when the pregnant woman approaches a Doctor with the complaint of vaginal discharge. He also sought to rely upon medical Autorities in support of his contention that Rovamycin Forte is the only drug prescribed for Toxoplasmosis in pregnant women during pregnancy. The learned Counsel for the complainant does not dispute this proposition. He however contends that administration of Rovamycin Forte without a test dose has given raise to reaction in the complainant''s body resulting in rashes and swelling of eyes which ultimately resulted in loss of eye sight. The learned Counsel for the O.Ps. submits that on 5.4.2002 itself O.Ps have prescribed blood test for Toxoplasmosis and blood test was got done only on 12.4.2005 i.e., after lapse of 7 days. Report was brought to the O.P. only on 13.4.2002 after a lapse of 8 days. It is the case of the complainants that she started taking medicine only after showing the report of O.P. 1 on 15.4.2002. He has, therefore, submitted that if the complainant had to suffer abortion on 16.4.2002, she cannot blame the O.Ps. because she herself committed delay of 10 days in taking the medicine. We find much force in this argument. In so far as the complaint of loss of eye sight is concerned, the grievance is that the O.Ps. have gone wrong in prescribing Rovamycin Forte continuously for 21 days. Rovamycin Forte was admittedly prescribed on 13.4.2002. The learned Counsel for the complainant has no dispute that Rovamycin Forte is the drug usually prescribed for treatment of Toxoplasmosis in pregnant women. He contends that it was wrong on the part of the O.Ps. to have prescribed continuous use of that drug for 21 days. The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to support such contention. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the O.Ps. has produced copies of Satoskar Kale Bhandarkar''s Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, 7th Addition by R.S. Satoskar & Others, wherein at page 74 it is stated that Pyrimethamine (which admittedly refers to Rovamycin) is used twice daily for one month along with sulfadiazine 4 mg., as a treatment for Toxoplasmosis. This Book, therefore, negatives the contentions of the complainant that there is a prohibition against continuous user of Rovaymcin as a treatment for Toxoplasmosis. On the other hand, it supports the theory that continuous user of Rovamycin is advised for treatment of Toxoplasmosis, existence of which was detected as a result of the blood test got done on 12.4.2002. The learned Counsel for the O.Ps. also relied upon a decision of this Commission in G. Sampanti v. The Manager, Personnel, Administration, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. & Another, III (2005) CPJ 369=2005 (2) CPR 537, wherein it was held that when serious complaint of medical negligence is made against a Doctor the burden is heavily on the complainant to prove such allegations. It was further held that serious question of medical negligence againt professional cannot be proved by mere suspicion by sole testimony of a layman. It was also held that when expert evidence to substantiate the allegation is not produced, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of a layman as a proof of medical negligence. Similar view was taken by the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, in Smt. Vimlesh Dixit v. Dr. R.K. Singhal, I (2004) CPJ 123=2004 (2) CPR 165, wherein it was held that a mere allegation will not make out a case of negligence unless it is proved by reliable evidence and is supported by expert evidence.

THE next allegation made against the O.Ps. is that when complaint of rashness and swelling in the eyes were made, the O.Ps. did not attend on the complainant properly. In page 2 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that on 13.4.2001 it was O.P. 2 who advised Rovamycin Forte for 21 days. THE complainant thought of taking the medicine only after consultation with O.P. 1 and therefore she went again to Gokak and consulted O.P. 1 on 15.4.2002. In the early morning of 16.4.2002, she got admitted to K.H.I. Hospital, Ghataprabha where abortion took place. A few sentences thereafter she says that the day next of taking the medicine, the complainant developed fever and pain in her both eyes and throat, on the 3rd day there was red rashes all over the body and swelling in the face. She was immediately taken to K.H.I. Hospital where she was admitted as inpatient. THE entire reading of the averments made in the complaint does not show as to when exactly the complainant started taking Rovamycin Forte. She has not taken Rovamycin Forte until 15.4.2002, because it was on that day she went to Gokak and consulted O.P. 1 and only thereafter she started taking Rovamycin Forte. On 16.4.2002, she was admitted to K.H.I. Hospital, Ghatprabha, where abortion took place. She has further stated that on the next of taking the medicine, she developed pain and fever. If the complaint started taking medicine on 15.4.2002, she was already in the Hospital on 16.4.2002 on which day she had abortion and she had also developed pain and fever. If that be so, there was no reason why she did not take treatment at K.H.I. Hospital for reaction of the drug.

THE learned Counsel for the O.Ps. has relied upon Ext. C20 to show that it was not on 16.4.2002 or thereafter that the complainant got herself admitted into K.H.I. Hospital. Ghataprabha, but it was on 8.4.2002 that she got herself admitted in that Hospital. A reading of the entries in Ext. C20 would show that the date of admission to K.H.I. Institute, Ghataprabha was on 8.4.2002 and date of discharge was 20.4.2002. THE Counsel for the complainant submits that the entry in Ext. C20 showing the date of admission is a mistake and date of admission was only 15.4.2002. It is not explained why a document with wrong date of admission was produced. However, all said and done if the complainant was immediately taken to K.H.I. Hospital, Ghataprabha after she developed fever and pain as a result of reaction of drug, it is not explained by her as to why the Doctors at K.H.I. Hospital were unable to treat the reaction immediately. It is not as if the complainant entirely depended on the services of O.Ps. for treatment of the reaction. In other words, the complainant did not come to O.Ps. at all for treatment of the reaction and on the other hand she had gone to K.H.I. Hospital for treatment. If that is so, we fail to understand as to how the complainant could blame the O.Ps. for their failure to attend on the complainant when complaint of reaction was made. On going through the entire evidence on record, we find that it was only on 9.5.2002 that the complainant has gone to the O.Ps. to find out the reason for reaction and not earlier. The learned Counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that no test dose was prescribed for administration of Rovamycin Forte as a treatment for Toxoplasmosis and which was to be administered orally. He submits that if at all the complainant had some reaction on account of use of said drug, she should have stopped taking that drug and should have immediately contacted the O.Ps. in their Hospital which the complainant admittedly did not do. Instead, she has chosen to go to K.H.I. Hospital, Ghataprabha on whom she does not have any complaint. The O.Ps. contend that the complainant has to pass through Gokak on her way from her village to Ghataprabha for treatment. Even on her way, she has not visited the O.P. Hospital for treatment of the so called reaction of the drug. Under such circumstances, we find that the complainant has come before this Commission with an imaginary allegation against the O.Ps. We, therefore, conclude that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. The complaint fails. In the result, we pass the following Order. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their costs. Complaint dismissed. _________________