Rajeswari vs ANTONY HOSPITAL

THE complainant Rejeswari was pregnant and due to pain she got herself admitted to the 1st opposite party hospital on 15.12.1995 at 7 p.m. She gave birth to a male child by normal delivery on 17.12.1995 at 7.15 a.m. According to the complainant she was dizzy throughout the day after the delivery and she started suffering from stomach pain in the evening. THEre was stomach swelling also. THEse she told to the 2nd opposite party Doctor who said that it could be so in normal delivery cases and it would become alright in course of time. THE complainant was discharged from the hospital on 19.12.1995 at 3 p.m. even while the pain and swelling was still there.

THE complainant was taken to her mother''s house, and the pain became severe resulting in loss of consciousness. Her mother and husband took her to private hospital at Ponner, there she was referred to V.K. Hospital, Purasawalkam and she was taken there. Treatment was given in that hospital and she was discharged on 26.12.1995. Due to negligence of the opposite parties the complainant had to undergo unbearable pain and suffering and mental agony and also financial loss. On these grounds the complaint was filed claiming compensation. The opposite party in their version contended that the 1st opposite party is a Charitable Institution and as such the ''complaint filed is not maintainable. The complainant was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital with pains on 15.12.1995 at 6.45 p.m. Subsequently she went into labour and delivered a male child normally at 7.15 a.m. on 17.12.1995. After the birth of the child sedation was given for the pain, and the so called stomach pain was due to the contraction of the uterus after delivery. This is quite common for patients after the delivery is effected and there was no stomach pain as such. The complainant was accordingly advised and she was asked to bear it. The complainant was discharged on 19.12.1995 and she was advised to take rest at home and visit the hospital for regular check up but she failed to appear before the 1st opposite party for routine check up. It is false to state that the complainant was discharged without any treatment for the pain and swelling in stomach. The allegation that the complainant lost consciousness cannot be true. If at all there was continuing pain and unconsciousness, it must be due to improper diet, starvation or hyperacidity. It may even be due to improper intake of medicines prescribed by the hospital. If the complainant had approached the opposite parties for further follow up, the opposite party would have examined the patient for the alleged pain and would have given treatment. The 1st opposite party hospital is one of the reputed hospitals of Madras and especially popular for maternity services. In these circumstances, no case has been made out against the opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The point for decision is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what .relief can be granted to the complainant.

POINT :-The complainant''s case against the opposite party is that after delivery of a child the complainant had stomach swelling and pain and the opposite party did not give proper treatment for the same but was discharged on 19.12.1995. The further case of the complainant is that she was taken to the V.K. Hospital, Puraswalkam and there she was treated till 26.12.1995. The contention of the opposite party for this is that in the case of normal delivery due to uterus contraction there will be pain and swelling and this was informed to the complainant and then she was discharged with advice to visit the hospital for check up but she failed to do so and instead she had gone to some other hospital and for that the opposite parties are not responsible. In the complaint it is not specifically stated as to how the opposite parties were negligent in their service. The opposite parties would contend that there could be pain as stated by the complainant in the normal delivery cases and she was asked to visit the hospital for check-up after discharge but she failed to visit. The complainant has examined herself as PW 1. She makes a new allegation against the opposite party stating that on 20.12.1995, she went back to the 1st opposite party hospital and there they refused to see her. This is clearly an improvement in the case of the complainant. Except stating that she had pain in the stomach in her evidence also she had not stated as to how the opposite parties were negligent in their service. No one from V.K. Hospital or any other hospital has been examined. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus we find no merit in the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.