MANPREET KAUR vs (VEENA GHUMBER

MR. Justice H.S. Brar, President-It is an appeal against the order dated 20.6.2000 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the "District Forum'').

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the appellant-complainants (hereinafter called the "complainants") were the minor daughter and father of deceased Balwinder Kaur and, thus, they were consumers of the respondent/opposite party (hereinafter called the "opposite party") under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants alleged deficiency in medical service on the part of the opposite party, viz. Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Ghumber, Ghumber Hospital and Maternity Home, Nakodar, District Jalandhar. According to the complainant, Smt. Balwinder Kaur had died due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,75,000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment caused to the complainants was asked for on the allegations that complainant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Gurdev Singh son of Mohan Singh and Harbans Singh son of Karnail Singh before the District Forum, on the advice of some persons, had brought Smt. Balwinder Kaur for routine check-up during her pregnancy to the hospital of the opposite party at Nakodar and during her pregnancy she remained under the treatment of the opposite party. On 26.8.1999 at the time of the delivery, complainant Nos. 2 and 3 had brought Smt. Balwinder Kaur and got her admitted in the hospital of the opposite party at Nakodar and had paid Rs. 6,000/- to the opposite party for the delivery. On that day, several medicines were administered to the deceased for convenient delivery. It was alleged in the complaint that complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were illiterate persons and had handed over all the papers to the opposite party at the time of admission on 26.8.1999. The opposite party did not issue any receipt in respect of payment of the amount of Rs. 6,000/- for delivery. A female child was born at about 10.40 p.m. on 26.8.1999, but unluckily in the morning on 27.8.1999 Smt. Balwinder Kaur had expired at about 7 a.m. and when the complainants had asked about the cause of death of Smt. Balwinder Kaur, the same was not disclosed to them. Record of treatment was also not disclosed to them. It was further alleged that the opposite party was incompetent and unqualified doctor for the purpose of delivery and with mala fide intention and to cheat the innocent and illiterate public had displayed the name of her shop as Hospital and Maternity Home. There was no other qualified Gynaecologist nor was there any Operation Theatre in the hospital of the opposite party. There was also no qualified Surgeon. The death of the deceased Balwinder Kaur was due to the negligence of the opposite party. The opposite party was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It was further alleged in the complaint that the opposite party had failed to register the birth of complainant No. 1 and death of Smt. Balwinder Kaur and when the complainant did not find entry in respect of the birth and death in the record of the Municipal Corporation, Nakodar, then he served a legal notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, also. For the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, a direction was sought from the District Forum to the opposite party to pay Rs. 4,75,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and financial loss caused to the complainants by the opposite party. The opposite party in its reply stated that the complaint was false and frivolous and deserved to be dismissed. There was no cause of action to file the complaint. There was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite party. However, it was stated in the reply that on 26.8.1999 at about 11.20 p.m. patient Balwinder Kaur was brought in a serious condition in emergency with a history of bleeding per vagina after delivery at home. It was told that the patient had delivered the child at home and delivery was conducted by some Dai. On examination by the opposite party and associate Dr. Pawan Arora, patient Balwinder Kaur was found profusely bleeding and was in a critical condition being a case of P.P.H. The serious condition of the patient was explained to one Mohan Singh, who had introduced himself as father of the patient''s husband. The standard medicines and I.V. fluids were administered to the patient. Since there was too much blood loss, the attendants had been asked for management of blood transfusion and they were also told that they would not be able to control the condition of the patient in case the blood was not transfused. The attendants, instead of managing the blood transfusion, insisted for shifting the patient to some other hospital and in spite of the objection, the patient had been taken to some other hospital against the medical advice and before leaving, the father of complainant No. 2, Mr. Mohan Singh, had confirmed in writing that they were shifting the patient at their own free will and responsibility and were aware of the condition of the patient. The patient was taken from the hospital of the opposite party at 1.10. a.m. (27.8.1999) without even making payment of the treatment, medicines, etc. to the opposite party. The opposite party was not aware as to what had happened to the patient afterwards, and when the payment of hospital charges was demanded, the complainants, instead of making the payment had filed the present complaint. It was, however, admitted by the opposite party that Smt. Balwinder Kaur used to visit their hospital during pregnancy and that she was advised for regular check-up during anti-natal period and to get admitted in the hospital on the expected due date, but she did not act upon the advice of the opposite party and underwent house delivery, which had resulted in excessive bleeding. It was further stated in the reply that Smt. Balwinder Kaur was not admitted in the hospital for delivery; rather she was brought to the opposite party in a serious condition after delivering the child at home. The opposite party denied having charged Rs. 6,000/- for conducting the delivery. It was also denied if the opposite party was incompetent and unqualified doctor. It was stated that she had already conducted several cases of delivery successfully as she was a qualified doctor having experience of eight years and another qualified doctor Pawan Arora was also associating with her in her hospital which was fully equipped. It was denied if any child was born or any patient had died in the hospital of the opposite party. In these circumstances, the opposite party was not under any obligation to make such intimation to the Municipal Corporation. It was further stated that no notice was ever issued or served by the complainants on the opposite party as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party sought dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

During the pendency of the complaint, complainant Nos. 1 and 2 through their Counsel Mr. Vijay Bhushan Mehta, Advocate had made statement before the District Forum on 18.5.2000 that they did not want to proceed with the present complaint; so, the same be dismissed as withdrawn. An application was moved by the opposite party that since complainant Nos. 1 and 2, who were Class-I heirs of the deceased, had withdrawn the present complaint; thus, complainant No. 3 Harbans Singh, father of the deceased, did not fall in the category of Class-I legal heirs and, therefore, he had no right and locus standi to maintain the complaint. On notice being given of this application, complainant No. 3 filed the reply and opposed the application on the ground that he was also in the list of legal heirs of the deceased and could continue the present complaint. The application was also decided by the District Forum along with the complaint on merits.

AFTER hearing the Counsels for the parties and after having gone through the records of the case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their assistance and we decide the appeal on merits.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellants argues that Dr. Veena Ghumber was not a qualified surgeon nor she had appointed any qualified Gynaecologist and that there was no Operation Theatre. According to the learned Counsel, as per the prescription slip, Ex. C-1, Dr. Veena Ghumber had prescribed some Allopathic medicines on 26.8.1999, which she was not otherwise entitled to do so. This, according to the learned Counsel, is negligence per se on the part of the opposite party. We do not find any force in this contention of the learned Counsel. The opposite party being the holder of B.A.M.S. degree is entitled to practise modern scientific system of medicine including the prescription of Allopathic drugs. Since integrated courses in Ayurvedic Medical Education comprises various topics under modern medicine and when such persons have put in considerable years of practice covering such topics also, they are certainly entitled to prescribe the Allopathic drugs. Moreover, Dr. Veena Ghumber in her affidavit Ex. O.P./1 had also stated that she had associated qualified doctor, Dr. Pawan Arora, with her and Dr. Pawan Arora in his affidavit Ex. O.P./2 had stated that he was a qualified doctor having M.B.B.S. degree and he was associated with Dr. Veena Ghumber in the Ghumber Hospital. Next grouse of the complainants was that on 26.8.1999 when the deceased was brought to the hospital of the opposite party for delivery, then some medicines were administered and a female child was delivered but due to the sheer negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party, Smt. Balwinder Kaur had died. The case of the opposite party is that female child was got delivered somewhere else and when Smt. Balwinder Kaur was brought to their hospital, she was found profusely bleeding and it was a case of P.P.H. which resulted in her death as the attendants and relatives of the deceased had failed to arrange for the blood transfusion. Even then the opposite party had tried their best to manage the excessive bleeding and to save the life of the deceased. The only evidence on the basis of which the complainants want to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is the evidence of Harbans Singh, complainant No. 3. He had deposed in terms of the allegations made in the complaint and stated that female child was born in the hospital of the opposite party and his daughter had expired at about 7.00 a.m. on 27.8.1999 in the hospital. Smt. Dalbir Kaur wife of complainant No. 2 Harbans Singh had deposed to that effect and stated that delivery was effected in the hospital where her daughter had died and that the opposite party was not a qualified surgeon. Incidentally, both had stated that during the pregnancy the deceased used to be examined by the opposite party and Dalbir Kaur was not present when the deceased was taken to the hospital and when the delivery was effected. Gurvinder Kaur, a Nurse, who is alleged to have worked in the hospital of the opposite party, had deposed that Smt. Balwinder Kaur used to visit the hospital of the opposite party for routine checkup and during the pregnancy she was under the treatment of Dr. Veena Ghumber and the prescription slip, Ex. C-1, was issued by Dr. Ghumber. She further deposed that all the papers with regard to the treatment of Smt. Balwinder Kaur had been handed over to Dr. Veena Ghumber. Similarly, Sarbjeet Kaur, another Nurse, had stated that she had been working in the hospital on 26.9.1999 and 27.9.1999 where Balwinder Kaur was admitted and Rs. 6,000/- were charged and some medicines were administered to the deceased, but after the delivery of the child Balwinder Kaur had died. With regard to the deposition of two Nurses that they used to work in the hospital Dr. Veena Ghumber in her affidavit Ex. O.P./1 had clearly deposed that the affidavit of Sarbjeet Kaur was false as she had never worked as Nurse of the opposite party and that the affidavit of another Nurse Gurvinder Kaur was false, concocted and had been submitted by her out of vengeance because she was terminated from service by the opposite party due to her misdeeds and misconduct and she had grudge towards the opposite party due to her removal from the job and out of vindictiveness, she had filed false and incorrect affidavit. There is nothing to doubt her affidavit Ex. O.P./1. The opposite party had also produced the patient''s original file Ex. O.P./4, the perusal of which would show that the patient had been brought in the hospital in Emergency with profuse bleeding per vagina and pain in between abdomen after delivery at home. The record also indicates that Balwinder Kaur was discharged on request at about 1.10. a.m. Further, Dr. Veena Ghumber while discharging the deceased had given a note that the patient was leaving against medical advice and Mohan Singh, father-in-law of Balwinder Kaur and father of Gurdev Singh, had given in writing that he was taking the patient on his own free will and that he had been made aware about the condition of the patient. The patient''s file coupled with the affidavits of Dr. Veena Ghumber and Dr. Pawan Arora clearly shows that the deceased had delivered a female child somewhere else and she had been brought to the hospital of the opposite party and was diagnosed to the case of P.P.H. and that it was a case of postpartum haemorrhage and for its proper management the opposite party gave the proper treatment but in spite of that the patient has expired, the opposite party was not to be blamed. In Postpartum Haemorrhage cause, as has been observed in ''Obstetrics and Gynaecology for Post-Graduates, Volume-I'' by S.S. Ratnam and K. Bhasker Rao, etc., the time element is very important in the management of postpartum haemorrhage as all events happen very quickly. Postpartum haemorrhage is the third major cause of maternal mortality, next to pregnancy induced hypertension and infection. The causes are (1) Atony of the uterus; (2) Trauma to the genital tract; (3) Coagulation disorder. It was a case of third degree haemorrhage and the patient''s file would show that for third degree haemorrhage, proper management had been done by the opposite party and no mis-management in this regard has been shown by the learned Counsel for the appellants. All the medicines that were administered were necessary for the proper management of the deceased. The husband of the deceased Gurdev Singh, his father Mohan Singh, had not supported the version of the complainants. Even no expert evidence was produced by the complainants to show that death of the deceased had been caused due to wrong diagnosis or wrong administration of the drugs by the opposite party. It was further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that no death or birth entry was got recorded by the opposite party in whose hospital the female child was born and Balwinder Kaur had died. Since neither the birth nor the death had taken place in the hospital of the opposite party, they were not under any obligation to report the matter to the Registrar of Death and Birth. Regarding the Birth and Death there is certificate, Ex. O.P./3. in the form of affidavit issued by the Sarpanch Harbans Lal of Gram Panchayat, Village Sadikur, who had certified that Balwinder Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh had died due to heart failure. An entry to that effect was duly made in the register of the Chowkidar as No. B.B.H. 379 which shows that she was cremated in the village on 27.8.1999 and this certificate disproves the case of the complainants that Balwinder Kaur had died in the hospital of the opposite party.

IN view of our discussion made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.