THOMASKUTTY SEBASTIAN Vs. SUNNY MATHEW
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-1-3
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 31,2009

Thomaskutty Sebastian Appellant
VERSUS
SUNNY MATHEW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN,MEMBER -IN -CHARGE OF PRESIDENT - (1.)By the order dated 13.9.2002 the CDRF, Kottayam had dismissed the complaint in OP 253/1998 and it is aggrieved by the said dismissal that the present appeal is filed by the complainant calling for the interference of this Commission as to the correctness of the order passed by the Forum below.
(2.)The complainants case in brief before the Forum are that the complainants wife became pregnant in the month of March 1996 and was consulted with the 1st opposite party who was working at Marian Medical Centre, Pala and it was suggested to have moderate rest. On 11.4.96 the complainant and his wife consulted the opposite party and was directed for taking scan as there was slight bleeding. On the same day itself the petitioner took his wife to the 1st opposite party along with scan report whereupon the 1st opposite party told the petitioner that though there was bulging on fallopian tube there was no chance for tubal pregnancy and that it was only incomplete abortion and hence there was no need for any fear. The opposite party instructed the complainant and his wife to wait for 7 days. As there was heavy bleeding on 15.4.l996 also the wife was taken to 1st opposite party who on examination told them that abortion was completed and there was no difficulty. In the mean time certain medicines were prescribed by the 1st opposite party. It is the further case of the complainant that on 18.4.1996 there was great pain for his wife and as the pain did not subside he took his wife to the 1st opposite party who assured the complainant that it was only completion of Abortion and prescribed tablets for the wife. However, as the bleeding continued he took his wife again on 23.4.1996 to the 1st opposite part who directed for further scanning and on 25.4.1996 scanning was done and the report was produced before the 1st opposite party who in turn informed the complainant that there was tubal pregnancy and the bleeding was due to deposit of waste hormones in the uterus. D and C was also advised by the 1st opposite party to be done at Holy Family Hospital which was owned by the 2nd opposite party. On 26.4.1996 the wife of the complainant suffered greater pain and was taken to the 1st opposite party. As the patient was not able even to move about the 1st opposite party examined the patient in the car and informed the complainant that it was tubal pregnancy and as the tube had burst an emergency operation was needed and asked the complainant to take her to Holy Family Hospital. Though the complainant was ready to take his wife to the nearby Marian Medical Centre, the 1st opposite party insisted him to take her to the Holy Family Hospital where no facilities required for the operation of his wife were available. However, at the insistence of the 1st opposite party, the patient was taken to Holy Family Hospital and she was taken to the operation theater who was fully conscious and was talking normally. The complainants grievance is that after half an hour the 1st and 2nd opposite parties came out of the operation theatre and asked the complainant to bring ambulance for taking his wife to the Medical College Hospital or some other hospital. Though she was taken to the nearby Cherupushpam Hospital, on reaching the hospital, the hospital authorities told him that his wife was dead. Alleging negligence, deficiency in service and other aspersions, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 as compensation as his wife was only 35 years old and was a Post Graduate Diploma holder at the time of death.
(3.)Resisting the complaint, the 1st opposite party filed version contending that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the issues involved require elaborate evidence and that there was no deficiency in service on his part. Hence it was prayed that the complaint was only to be dismissed. However it was admitted by him that the complainant had consulted him with his wife regarding the complaint of infertility and that they came to him on 8.4.1996 with the test result wherein it was found that she was pregnant. He advised moderate rest and prescribed medicines and since she had developed complications, the 1st opposite party advised an ultra sound scan also to find out the viability of the fetus. It was also submitted by him that on 11.4.96 the complainant and his wife consulted him with ultra sound scan report and on examining the report he suspected incomplete abortion. However it is his case that the said scan report did not give ally conclusive opinion as to the stage of pregnancy and he advised the patient to continue rest and visit him after seven days. The patient as well as the complainant were given detailed appraisal of the symptoms of abortion and ectopic pregnancy and the precautions to be taken in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Though the visit on 16.4.06 by the complainant and his wife was denied their visits on 18.4.96 and 23.4.96 were admitted by the 1st opposite party. On 23.4.96 the 1st opposite party noticed thickening of the right fallopian tube and explained to the patient the possibilities of the tubal pregnancy and repeated scan was advised by him. It is his case that in the scan that was done on 25.4.96, the incomplete abortion was confirmed and as he had doubts regarding the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy advised the deceased to undergo D & C. It is his further case that on 26.4.96 morning, the complainant had brought his wife, the deceased to his residence and on examination it was found that it was the case of ectopic pregnancy and as the condition of the patient was very critical he advised the complainant to admit tile patient in a nearby hospital immediately. The case of the complainant that the 1st opposite party had insisted the patient to be admitted in Holy Family Hospital itself was strongly denied by him and it was submitted that it was at the option of the complainant that the patient was taken to the 2nd opposite party. It was also denied by him that he had followed the patient to the Holy Family Hospital. His further contention before the Forum was that the inordinate delay in medical aid by the complainant to his wife had worsened the condition of the patient and she was in a state of shock when she was taken to him on 26.4.1997 at 9 Oclock in the morning. The 1st opposite party contended that if the complainant had shown some care and caution in admitting the patient as soon as he was advised to do so, the tragedy could have been avoided and it was the complainant himself who was negligent in getting proper treatment at the appropriate time which resulted in the death of his wife.


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