B. LEELAVATHI OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNECOLOGIST Vs. MALLIALA SAIVARDHINI
LAWS(APCDRC)-2010-5-9
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 19,2010

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Shreesha - (1.)Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.136/2005 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, opposite party No.1 preferred F.A.No.538/2007 and opposite party No.3 preferred F.A.No.650/2007. Since both the appeals arise out of the same C.D., they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.)The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant No.1 is the daughter and complainant No.2 was the husband of late Subhadra who died on 11-6-2004 on account of negligence in treatment of opposite parties 1 and 2. The deceased Subhadra became pregnant in the month of December, 2003 and was under prenatal treatment of opposite party No.1 and taking treatment regularly as advised. During the course of the treatment, opposite party No.1 advised the deceased to undergo scanning and on undergoing the same on 30-5-2004, opposite party no.1 confirmed that she was carrying twins and informed the due date of delivery as 3-7-2004. The deceased consulted opposite party no.1 periodically and opposite party No.1 prescribed medicines and informed the complainant and parents of the deceased that every thing was normal and the deceased would have a normal delivery. The deceased used to complain severe backache and opposite party No.1 had not given attention to the said problem and ignored Edema and Blood pressure that the deceased developed during pregnancy. Opposite party No.1 failed to find out for a period of 6 months that the deceased was carrying twins and did not take proper care and was negligent in treating the deceased right from the time the deceased consulted her for the first time in the month of May, 2004. On 11-6-2004 the deceased complained of severe pain in abdomen and was immediately taken to the first opposite party who did not conduct any pathological tests and not bothered to know about the cause for the ailment and after examining referred to Dr.Mallesham of Tirumala Hospital, Peddapalli to get bleed report. The said doctor conducted the blood test and with that report the deceased approached opposite party no.1 and opposite party No.1 after going through the reports refused to admit the deceased in her nursing home without assigning any reason and when the attendants requested her to provide the necessary life saving medical aid till she was given to some other hospital, opposite party No.1 refused to admit or provide medical aid and had not even advised any alternative. It is the case of the complainants that it is the responsibility of the doctor to inform the patients attendants about the disease and the alternative treatment to be provided for the same. The complainant No.2 and the parents of the deceased took her to second opposite party corporate hospital and they too have not admitted the patient inspite of her serious condition and have not conducted any pathological tests and by just looking at the report of Dr.Mallesham of Thirmuala hospital gave treatment without diagnosing the disease of the deceased.
(3.)The complainants submitted that opposite party no.1 had not taken proper care in treating the deceased and neglected to conduct urine test to find out protein urea particularly when she noted high blood pressure and oedema of feet of the deceased and not conducted the pathological tests while giving treatment to the deceased and had not admitted her in the nursing home on 11-6-2004 when the deceased was suffering from severe pain and her condition was critical. Opposite party No.2 was negligent in giving treatment to the deceased inspite of her serious condition and had taken the patient to ICU and there she was not closely monitored and there was no nurse and Gynaecologist in opposite party No.2 hospital to attend the patient and there were no standard resuscitative equipment to review the patient and not even conducted post mortem examination on the deceased to find out the cause of death and without any basis issued death certificate stating that the cause of death is due to Cardio respiratory arrest. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties and seeking direction to pay compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.