Dr. Nargis Paul W/o C. H. Madhai v Mamta Kumari W/o Pawan Kumar
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
DELHI BENCH
29 May 2013
Revision Petition No. 3807 of 2011
The Judgment was delivered by : Dr. S. M. Kantikar (Member)
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner Dr. Mrs. Nargis Paul assailing orders passed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 13.09.2011 in the First Appeal 39/2009.
2. Facts in brief of this Case are: From 24.10.2006 Smt. Mamta Kumari, the Respondent/complainant (OP) for her first pregnancy was followed Antenatal care (ANC) under Dr. Nargis Paul who is the Petitioner herein. On 4/2/2007 she was admitted with labour pain in St.Paul Healthways, Ranchi. The petitioner performed Caesarean Section (LSCS) operation and delivered a healthy baby .She remained in hospital up to 12/2/2007. As per complainant she felt continuously febrile (fever) by negligence of Petitioner. It was also alleged that she had to shift to Bangalore and was under treatment up to 5th March 2007.According to the complainant Dr.Paul hastily conducted LSCS and left her without completing the process to proceed on picnic. It was also asserted that fever was kept subsided with injection to cover-up her deficiencies and faults in treatment. For which complainant filed as complaint in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “District Forum”) for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as monetary loss, 1,00,000/- for physical and mental agony with cost of litigation Rs.10000/- against the Respondent/Appellant. Dr.Paul appeared before District forum and denied any deficiency and negligence in treatment and LSCS was performed with utmost care and caution. The compliant was discharged on 12.02.2007 after complete recovery. It was contended that any pelvic infection detected at Bangalore on 22/02/2007 may be due to unhygienic condition of Smt Mamata.
The District Forum held the petitioner for negligence observing as follows:
7. While going through the entire case records and documents it is observed that the decision of OP-Doctor to go for LSCS operation of the Complainant. In case of breech presentation found was not an act of negligence and deficiency in service on part of Complainant. But an appreciation of the treatment reports in connection with the Complainant’s treatment at Manipal Hospital at Bangalore during the period from 22.02.2007 to 21.03.2007 has led us to conclude that the symptoms of UTI. Bilateral gluteal antibioma and pelvic infection developed to the Complainant after her caesarean operation by the OP doctor were on account of her negligence and deficiency in service provided to the Complainant during the caesarean operation and also posts operatively. In view of the above we, therefore, hold OP liable to pay compensation to the Complainant.
3. Thereafter two appeals were filed in State Commission as the complainant filed appeal No.63/2009 for enhancement of compensation a while the petitioner Dr.Paul filed First appeal No. 39/2009 for dismissal of order. The State Commission after hearing the parties and evidence on record uphold the order of District Forum and dismissed the FA 39/2009 and also dismissed FA 63/2009 for enhancement of award of compensation.
4. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission the petitioner preferred this revision petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner who asserted that there was no negligence and also brought our notice that the State Commission has not found any negligence or deficiency on part of petitioner; but confirmed the said order passed by District Forum and awarded compensation of Rs.50000/-.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and relied upon several medical texts, literature and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this commission.
7. The case sheet record of St Paul’s Healthways perused from the date of admission as 4.2.2007 to date of discharge on 12.2.2007 which narrated entire treatment aspect, operative details, TPR (temperature, pulse records) etc; accordingly It’s clear that the patient (complainant) was comfortable and temperature records were ranging from 96 to 98F which is within normal range. Even on the date of discharge complainant was Afebrile (No fever) and she was in good health. She was discharged with an advice to take proper rest and some medication as per discharge summary. Further, she was advised to come for review after a month or earlier if any problem occurs. This is correct and as per standards of medical practice; hence we do not find any deficiency or negligence in medical services by petitioner.
8. It is contended that father of complainant took her to petitioner for c/o fever who flatly denied treating her. Therefore, her condition deteriorated day by day, she went to Bangalore by air then on 22.02.2007 taken treatment at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. Suffering from fever is not critical issue and not an emergency. It is the fault on the part of complainant and her father that instead of traveling thousands of kilometers, a long distance to Bangalore, she should have taken to other major hospitals nearby (Bakaro General Hospital) who deals with such critical patients. Therefore, such built up story and false submission of complainant is unacceptable.
9. We have perused the documents of Manipal Hospital, Bangalore like then Discharge Summery and various tests reports. Our observations reveal that complainant was admitted in Manipal Hospital from 22/2/2007 to 5/3/2007. The final diagnosis mentioned as “URINARY TRACT INFECTION. BILATERAL ANTIBIOMA, PELVIC INFECTION.” After proper treatment she was discharged on 05.03.2007; but the OP again got admitted on 10.03.2007 in Manipal Hospital, Bangalore with pain and fever over surgical wound at anterior abdominal wall which was treated and discharged on 21.03.2007. There was no reference or any mention about the cause of fever was due to previous LSCS in the records of Manipal Hospital. We have referred several medical literatures which did not reveal the LSCS is one of the direct cause of antibioma or Urinary Tract Infection/Pelvic Infection. Such infections are common due to unhygienic condition of patient and other several causes and health condition of patient. Manipal Hospital did not mention at the time of admission the patient’s condition was critical; hence the complainant’s say is absolutely false one.
10. On the point of law the State Commission in its order duly observed and acknowledged that the Complainant/OP has not brought any evidence in support of the negligence by the Petitioner nor to prove that she left the OP with open surgical wound and went for a picnic. It is also observed that the OP has not brought on record any evidence to show that the treatment provided by the Petitioner to the OP during her one week stay (4-12.2.2007) at St Paul’s Healthways was not in accordance with established practices of an ordinary skilled doctor.
11. It is explained that petitioner is a reputed Obstetrician and Gynecologist working as In charge of St Paul’s Health ways, a hospital for women by women since 1991 and awarded for her best services and charity. In this case we would like to rely upon Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment which laid down certain principles in Jacob Mathew’s Case Vs State of Punjab (2005) 6 SSC 1ย 2005 Indlaw SC 452ย and in another case Kusum Sharma & ors Vs Batra Hospital and Medical Research & ors (2010) 3 SCC 480ย 2010 Indlaw SC 139; Hon’ble Justice Dalveer Bhandari discussed the issue of medical negligence and protection of medical professionals the relevant text from the judgment as:
“The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals. In our considered view, the aforementioned principles must be kept in view while deciding the cases of medical negligence. We should not be understood to have held that doctors could never be prosecuted for medical negligence. As long as the doctors have performed their duties and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence. It is imperative that the doctors must be able to perform their professional duties with free mind.”
12. Therefore, we apply well-settled principles enumerated in the preceding paragraphs in dealing with cases of medical negligence, the conclusion becomes irresistible that petitioner’s act was not a medical negligence. The impugned orders of the District Forum and State Commission have miserably failed to appreciate the facts on record which indicates that they have not based their findings on any cogent or convincing reasons. The conduct of complainant is evidently deplorable and should not have escaped the attention of State Commission.
13. Based on the above discussion, it is very clear that the Complainant/OP is not entitled for any compensation. Even if she has suffered by her ill health which has no nexus with previous LSCS operation. The material placed on record makes very clear that there was every intention on the part of complainant to mislead the consumer Fora and harass the doctor. Therefore, we allow this Revision Petition and set aside the order of State Commission. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
Revision allowed
