BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH
Original Complaint No._________ of 2016
Rajveer Singh Meena son of Sh. Banai Singh Meena age 30 years resident of House No.145, Near Sabji Mandi, Naya Gaon, Mohali, Punjab.
....Complainant
VERSUS
1. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh through its Director.
2. Dr. Rimpy Singla, Assistant Professor, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Nehru Hospital, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
3. Dr. Monika Meena, Senior Resident, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Nehru Hospital, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
4. Dr. Neethi, Junior Resident, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Nehru Hospital, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
.........Respondents/Opposite Parties
Complaint U/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1. That the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 having availed the services of the respondent PGIMER for a consideration and the respondents/opposite parties having performed the caesarean operation negligently with imperfection resulting into death of wife of the complainant, thus, the same suffers from sheer deficiency in service.
2. That the complainant Sh. Rajveer Singh who is working as regular Driver in the Transport Department of PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh is father of two minor daughters one aged about 5 years and the other aged less than 1 year. The complainant expecting his second child from his wife Smt. Rekha Devi aged 29 years was getting her regularly checked up from the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, PGIMER Chandigarh. The outpatient card No.201400003601 issued to the wife of complainant Smt. Rekha Devi is appended as ANNEXURE C-1. The past medical and family history of the patient Smt. Rekha Devi as recorded by the doctors in her medical case file at the time of admission in the hospital categorically shows that there was no prior history of any abdominal surgery or TB etc. except the Lower Segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) undergone during the birth of the first child.
3. That the consulting doctors respondent No.2 to 4 had given the due date of birth of the child as 10.09.2015. However, due to uneasiness and pain, the complainant took his wife for check up to the PGI on 31.08.2015 where on account of high blood pressure, the consulting doctors at respondent PGIMER admitted Smt. Rekha Devi in the Gynae Ward.
4. That consequently, on 31.08.2015 the consulting doctors sought the consent of Smt. Rekha Devi whether she wants to attempt for a normal delivery (VBAC) or she wants to go for a repeat caesarean operation to which Smt. Rekha Devi opted for a normal virginal birth vide consent form dated 31.08.2015, copy appended as ANNEXURE C-2.
5. That since, the patient Smt. Rekha Devi was having high blood pressure and had earlier also undergone caesarean surgery during the birth of her first child keeping in view her condition decided to go for a planned surgery i.e. Caesarean Section (LSCS) and again sought the consent from the patient Smt. Rekha Devi as well as his husband Sh. Rajveer Singh-complainant on 01.09.2015, copy of consent form dated 01.09.2015 is appended as ANNEXURE C-3.
6. That thereafter, Smt. Rekha Devi was shifted to the Clean Labour Room (CLR) where the doctors performed the caesarean surgery on the wife of the complainant and a baby girl weighing 2.42 Kgs was delivered by Smt. Rekha Devi on 01.09.2015 at 6:12 PM. Subsequently, after delivery, Smt. Rekha Devi alongwith the new born child was shifted to Private Ward on 02.09.2015 of the hospital where in the evening on 02.09.2015, Smt. Rekha Devi complained of abdomen pain and Dyspnea i.e. difficult or laboured breathing. Subsequently, her condition worsened and she started vomiting and complained of acute Dyspnea.
7. That thereafter on 03.09.2015, the BP of the patient Smt. Rekha Devi started falling and she had difficulty in passing stools and was having acute abdominal distension and the ward residents were duly informed and aware about the condition of the patient, however, the consulting doctors respondents No.2 to 4 did not view the acute condition of Smt. Rekha Devi seriously and did not take any remedial measure.
8. That on 04.09.2015, when the condition of patient Smt. Rekha Devi did not improve, and she was having acute Dyspnea and hypertension, an abdomen X-ray was conducted and the report showed “Dilated Bowles Loops with Air Fluid Levels” which means that the X-ray showed there was some intestinal problem with the patient. Even after the X-ray report, the doctors respondent No.2 to 4 did not show any urgency in the matter and in a casual and lacklustre manner, the Ultrasound (USG) was conducted in the evening of 04.09.2015 alongwith other clinical tests which showed that the TLC count of the patient had arisen to 13,300 against the normal range to 4000-11000 indicating infection in the body. The report of the Ultrasound (USG) showed free fluid in the intestines which means that the intestines are perforated and teared (cut) and thereafter, the patient Smt. Rekha Devi was shifted to Septic Labour Room (SLR).
9. That consequently, on 05.09.2015 the doctors on account of clinical test reports and Ultrasound (USG) reports showing free fluid in the intestines diagnosed “PYOPERITONIUM” and decided to re-explore/Perform Emergency Laparotomy Surgery on the patient qua which the consent form was also got signed from the complainant-husband of Smt. Rekha Devi on 05.09.2015 which categorically mentioned that there was presence of Pyoperitonium (free fluid in intestine) and the deteriorating condition of the patient.
10. That it is further most pertinent to mention here that the patient Smt. Rekha Devi was again taken to Emergency Operation Theatre on 05.09.2015 for re-exploration/ Emergency Laparotomy Surgery which was performed by respondent No.2 Dr. Rimpy alongwith Dr. Pavneet Koli and Dr. P.K. Saha. The area of earlier surgery was again opened up by the surgeons and as per the post operative notes supplied by the respondent No.1 under RTI, there was presence of about 500-600 ml of multiple flakes of PUSS and there was presence of VEGETABLE MATERIAL and it is further mentioned that there was no bowel injury.
11. That it is further pertinent to add here that during the Laparotomy Surgery on 05.09.2015 the wife of the complainant Smt. Rekha Devi went into hypertension with nil urine output resulting into Kidney Failure Diagnosed as Acute Renal Failure and with further complication of Septicaemia (High Grade Fever) and was put on ventilator and shifted to Communicable Disease Ward.
12. That on 06.09.2015, when the condition of the wife of the complainant Smt. Rekha Devi who was on ventilator and was diagnosed with Acute Renal Failure after Post Exploratory Laparotomy Surgery with Pyoperitonium was deteriorating, the consulting/operating surgeons including respondent No.2 & 3 planned a HEAMO-DIALYSIS on the patient on account of nil urine output and the patient having gone in Acute Renal Failure condition but could not perform the same as the condition of the patient kept on deteriorating and ultimately at about 3:15 PM on 06.09.2015 the wife of the complainant Smt. Rekha Devi died on account of Septic Shock/Acute Renal Failure with antecedent cause of Puerperial Sepsis. The complete medical case file of the deceased wife of complainant Smt. Rekha Devi (CR No.201400003601 and admission No.2015057286) as received by the complainant under RTI is appended as ANNEXURE C-4. The medical certificate of cause of death as issued by respondent PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh alongwith death certificate issued by Department of Health Services UT Chandigarh is appended as ANNEXURE C-5.
13. That after the death of his wife Smt. Rekha Devi, the complainant cleared all the pending dues/bills of respondent PGIMER pertaining to the treatment and surgery and thereafter, the complainant was released the dead body of his wife from the mortuary of the PGIMER. One such final adjustment bill-cum-receipt issued by the respondent PGIMER is appended as ANNEXURE C-6.
14. That it is most humbly submitted that the complainant brought his wife Smt. Rekha Devi for her second pregnancy in a hail and hearty condition with normal running pregnancy and with no prior history of any abdominal surgery or TB etc. except Lower Segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) and the diagnose of Pyoperitonium is in no manner a complication/ implication or after effect of caesarean section as performed by respondent No.2 to 4 on the wife of the complainant. It is further most humbly submitted that the presence of 500-600 ml of puss as well as vegetable material in the Peritonium/abdomen (not uterus) of Smt. Rekha Devi clearly shows that the doctors respondent No.2 to 4 while performing the C-Section surgery on 01.09.2015 had in a careless and negligent manner teared/ripped the intestines of the patient Smt. Rekha Devi on account of which there developed infection in the Peritonium/abdomen (not uterus) resulting in huge quantity of puss as well as presence of vegetable matter in the abdomen.
Further, it is categorically and specifically contended that the delivery of child relates to uterus and its function is to nurture the fertilized ovum that develops into the fetus and holding it till the baby is mature enough for birth and except the same, there cannot be any presence of vegetable matter in the uterus which could have leaked into the Peritonium/ abdomen. Vegetable matter could have only reached the peritoneum/abdomen because of perforation/ tearing of intestine during the C-Section Surgery.
15. That it is further most humbly submitted that the recruitment cell of respondent No.1 PGIMER issued an advertisement dated 04.03.2014, copy appended as ANNEXURE C-7 for various posts of Group ‘A, B & C’. The wife of complainant Smt. Rekha Devi being belonging to ST category and having the requisite essential qualification and experience for the post of ‘Medical Record Technician’ applied with respect to the said advertisement for the said post having the Pay Scale/ Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.2400/- in the requisite performa. After due scrutiny of the applications of the candidates, who applied vide advertisement dated 04.03.2014 (C-7) the recruitment cell of respondent PGIMER vide notice dated 09.05.2014 copy appended as ANNEXURE C-8 uploaded the list of all eligible candidates on the website of the Institute wherein the name of the wife of the complainant Smt. Rekha Devi figured at Sr. No.46 and further the perusal of the complete list of candidates found eligible for written test categorically showed that there were only 3 ST category candidates who were eligible for written test against the 3 ST category posts of Medical Record Technician advertised vide advertisement dated 04.03.2014 (C-7).
That Smt. Rekha Devi wife of the complainant was issued E-Admit-cum-Attendance Card, copy appended as ANNEXURE C-9 for appearing in the written examination to be held on 21.09.2014 in Government High School Sector 11A, Chandigarh and she appeared on the said date in the written test. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 25.09.2014, copy appended as ANNEXURE C-10 wherein the result of the candidates who have qualified the written examination was displayed. The name of Smt. Rekha Devi wife of the complainant bearing roll No.46546 figured at Sr. No.150 of the list of candidates who qualified the written examination for the post of Medical Record Technician.
That it is further pertinent to add her that out of the 3 candidates belonging ST category who had applied against the 3 ST category posts of Medical Record Technician advertised by respondent PGIMER, only 2 candidates belonging to ST category i.e. Smt. Rekha Devi (wife of complainant) and Smt. Sandhya D/W/O Sh. Gobind qualified the written examination and the 3rd ST category candidate Smt. Bhisham Kumari D/W/O Bhusher Singh did not qualify the written examination and was thus declared unsuccessful. That consequently, against the 3 advertised posts of Medical Record Technician under ST category, only 2 candidates including the wife of the complainant were to be selected against the 3 posts.
16. That in view of the above, the wife of the complainant was likely to be selected and appointed on the post of Medical Record Technician since there were only 2 eligible candidates including Smt. Rekha Devi against the 3 advertised posts under ST category and would have drawn a minimum salary of approximately Rs.25,000-30,000/- per month in the pay scale/pay band of Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs.2400/- with further increase in the salary every year and also on account of promotion/financial upgradations. However, due to the sheer negligence and mishandling of the case of wife of complainant Smt. Rekha Devi by the respondents, she lost her life leaving behind 2 minor daughters aged 4½ years and less than 1 year as of now with the complainant and there being no other female member in the family as the mother of the complainant has also since expired and the father of the complainant is in his old age and since the complainant is a driver in the Transport Department PGIMER, he has to up-bring her minor daughters with the help of a maid servant who is taking care of their food, clothing etc.
17. That the perusal of the above contentions made in the present complaint categorically show that the deceased wife of the complainant Smt. Rekha Devi died on 06.09.2015 (C-5) on account of sheer negligence of respondent No.2 to 4 and also on account of delay in taking proper post operative precautions which could have resulted in saving the life of wife of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to relief (s) as prayed for in the present original complaint from the opposite parties.
18. That the offices of opposite parties/respondents are located at Chandigarh and the cause of action of sheer negligence of respondent No.2 to 4 resulting into death of wife of complainant has also arisen at Chandigarh, thus, this Hon’ble Commission has the pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present dispute.
19. That the present complaint is being filed within the period of limitation of 2 years.
In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-
1) Direct the opposite parties to pay compensation/damages amounting to Rs.75 lacs on account of sheer negligence and mishandling of case of wife of complainant Smt. Rekha Devi resulting into her untimely death on 06.09.2015 (C-5) alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the due date to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court till its actual payment.
2) Direct the opposite parties to pay an exemplary compensation of Rs.20 lacs on account of causing immense mental agony to the complainant on account of irreparable loss of losing his wife at such a young age and also on account of loss of love and care of mother to the minor children of complainant throughout their life and on account of massive, stress and strain of managing the upbringing of his minor girls single handedly without their being any lady member in the family.
3) Direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- as costs/litigation expenses being borne by the complainant due to the misdeeds of respondents.
4) Pass any other suitable order or direction/ either additional or alternative as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case for which the complainant may be found entitled to in the interest of justice.
Chandigarh (Rajveer Singh Meena)
Dated: 14.08.2016 Signature of Complainant
Through Counsels
(Moushmi Mittal) (Barjesh Mittal)
Advocates
VERIFICATION:
I, Rajveer Singh Meena son of Sh. Banai Singh Meena age 30 years resident of House No.145, Near Sabji Mandi, Naya Gaon, Mohali, Punjab do here by verify that the contents of paras 1 to 19 of this complaint are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Chandigarh (Rajveer Singh Meena)
Dated: 14.08.2016 Signature of Complainant
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH
Original Complaint No._________ of 2016
Rajveer Singh Meena
....Complainant
VERSUS
PGIMER & Others
.........Respondents/Opposite Parties
Affidavit of Rajveer Singh Meena son of Sh. Banai Singh Meena age 30 years resident of House No.145, Near Sabji Mandi, Naya Gaon, Mohali, Punjab.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is filing the accompanying original complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction to the respondents to pay compensation/ damages for cause sheer negligence in operating his wife for 2nd pregnancy and mishandling her case by not taking post operative precautions resulting into her death on 06.09.2015 amounting to deficiency in service on the part of respondents.
2. That the deponent categorically and specifically ratifies the contents made in the accompanying original complaint from paras 1 to 19 as true and correct. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
