KATRA SATYANARAYANA Vs. LAKSHMI NURSING HOME
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
LAKSHMI NURSING HOME
Click here to view full judgement.
MAMATA LAKSHMANNA,MEMBER -
(1.) THIS appeal has been filed
by the unsuccessful complainants in O.P. No. 293/1996 on the file of
District Forum, Guntur.
(2.) THE first complainant is the husband of late Rajani Kumari and complainants 2 and 3 are his minor children. When Rajani Kumari was
expecting her second baby, she approached opposite party No. 1 and
consulted third opposite party, who is the Gynaecologist. She was a
patient of third opposite party from 26.9.1995 to 21.11.1995 when she
died in the first opposite party nursing home. Her first delivery was by
caesarean section in another hospital in 1990. When she approached the
third opposite party, she showed all the reports of her first delivery.
She was admitted in the opposite party nursing home when pains started on
20.1 1.1995. However, no tests were conducted like blood, sugar, urine etc. nor RH typing was done. When she was admitted at 12.00 noon on
20.11.1995, as per the case sheet, her B.P. was 140/90 which came down on 130/90 and there was mild meconium stained liquor and the opposite parties did not make any preparation for caesarean section in case of
emergency, such as, blood grouping, cross matching, RH typing etc., and
keeping the necessary blood ready. It is alleged that at that stage
Syntocinon was given with 40 drops per minute and not 20 drops as
mentioned in the case sheet. This high rate of Syntocinon led to rupture
of the uterus and previously operated scar also got damaged which led to
profuse blood loss. This all happened due to the negligence of third
opposite party. At 3.30 p.m. the baby was delivered but bleeding was not
controlled inspite of methergine injections, but no attempt was made to
investigate the bleeding and clotting time. Only at 4.40 p.m. the blood
was sent for grouping, typing and cross -matching. By 4.45 p.m. B.P. was
not recoverable. Though her condition was bad, till 5.00 p.m. relatives
were not informed only then they informed the relatives that A
negative blood was required. Since it was not available A positive
blood was given to the patient. In spite of repeated requests by the
family to consult some other doctor, it was not done, nor was the patient
investigated for renal failure. No record of urine output was maintained.
Ryles tube was passed and 200 ml. of coffee coloured fluid noticed and
ultimately she went into shock from which she never recovered.
(3.) THE opposite parties filed a joint version and denied all the allegations. Their contention was that Rajani Kumari came as out -patient
for the first time on 26.9.1995 and after that she never turned up for
check up. She finally came on 20.11.1995 when labour pains started. All
the necessary tests like urine -albumin, blood grouping typing etc. were
done when she visited the first time. She had undergone caesarean
operation for her previous delivery 5 years ago. On admission on
20.11.1995 she was given routine treatment with antibiotics, 5% dextrose with 2.5 units of syntocynon with 20 drops per minute which is half the
usual dose. Opposite parties 2 and 3 were constantly monitoring the pulse
rate, B.P., fetal heart rate and progress of labour. A healthy baby was
born at 3.30 p.m. by normal delivery. Presence of mild meconium stained
liquor was not a very serious thing and it would never affect the mother
in any case. Placenta expelled automatically within 10 minutes after
delivery and methergine injection was given at 3.15 p.m. Suddenly profuse
bleeding started and even another dose of methergine followed by
Prostadin injection at 4.00 p.m. could not control it. By 4.30 p.m. the
patient went into shock, the pulse became thready and B.P. fell. At that
stage all required drugs were given and measures taken to control the
bleeding and a second time, blood grouping was done as a measure of
abundant care. As A negative blood was not available and seeing that
the condition of the patient was deteriorating one bottle of A positive
blood from her maternal uncle was given which shows the care taken by the
doctors. Subsequently 6 units of A negative blood was also transfused.
Inspite of all this, the patient could not be revived. The complainants
complained huge amounts which is not justified since there was no
negligence and also because complainant No. 1 has married a second time.
The District Forum on a consideration of the material and evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in
service since the opposite parties acted in the manner generally
acceptable to medical profession and thus dismissed the complaint. Hence
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.