Right Elbow of Newborn Dislocated in hospital care: Consumer Court Directs Rs 5 Lakh Compensation

Even though the Commission noted that it cannot be ascertained as due to whose negligent acts the incident of dislocation was caused, it also noted that it is clear that the dislocation had happened while the child was in the care and custody of the hospital.

Opining it to be a case of defective service by the Hospital Administration, the Commission noted, "Hospital is bound to take care of their patients. But they have failed in doing such duty, which has caused the dislocation of the right elbow of newborn baby. Any harm caused due to the negligent acts on the part of the Opposite Party Hospital staff contracts liability. The patients expect only diligent and proper care. If any of the acts or omission of the hospital staffs are negligent within the hospital will be vicariously liable."

Back in 2019, the Wife of the complainant approached the hospital for her pregnancy procedures. She went into labour and a healthy baby was born via caesarean section and both the mother and the child were in good condition.

It had been alleged by the Complainant that when the duty doctors and nurses took the baby for a bath they didn't handle the baby with care and as a result, the right elbow of the child got dislocated. Being shocked to see the condition of the baby when the complainant questioned the hospital staff to admit their negligence, the hospital authority allegedly promised to take the responsibility of treatment and to rectify the right elbow of the child, and subsequently summoned an Orthopedician from Apollo hospital. The doctor advised some X-Rays and the reports confirmed that there was a dislocation on the right elbow of the baby and plaster of Paris bandage was fixed.

Further the complainant stated before the Commission that the treating hospital suppressed this in the discharge summary and advised the complainant to come after 3 months. Consequently, when the child was taken to the hospital they refused to treat or examine the child unless the heavy bills were paid.

Also Read: Unfair trade practice, deficiency in service in treating cardiac patient: Consumer court directs hospital, bank to pay compensation

The complainant paid the amount and took an x-ray and it was confirmed by the doctors that the dislocation was not adjusted and the same had not healed. A few months later when the complainant visited the Orthopeadician, he had also confirmed that the dislocation didn't heal properly.

Meanwhile, as the hospital denied the responsibility of the treatment of the child, as promised, the complainant approached the police station Jubilee Hills and filed a complaint. The complainant pointed out that they had taken a second opinion to ascertain the condition of the baby and another doctor after examining the child, confirmed that the child's elbow has got a Gun Stock Deformity.

Submitting that the lifetime deformity of the child has caused severe pain and suffering to the child, and has also caused a lot of mental agony to the parents and family members of the minor child, the complainant sought compensation and costs.

On the other hand, the hospital opposed the complaint and although they accepted that the right elbow of the healthy baby had a swelling, they argued that the injury caused to the baby is subluxation and not dislocation and that the same was caused due to the negligence and mishandling by the parents or relatives of the baby. They also claimed that proper medical attention and timely treatment was given to the baby.

The hospital also pointed out that the complainant's wife had a previous history of caesarean wherein she gave birth to triplets out of which only one child survived. They claimed that this time too many relatives were visiting the babies and they failed to follow the norms and they might have mishandled the baby which resulted in the injury.

They also argued that the baby was only sponged and the staff of the hospital are skilled and if the injury would have been caused at the time of sponging, the swelling would be noticed immediately.

After listening to the contention of both sides, the Commission also perused all the relevant documents relating to the child's case including the Discharge Summary, medical bills, X-Ray reports, Assurance letter, etc.

Taking note of the Progress Sheet of the baby, the commission observed that the final diagnosis mentions, "New born right elbow dislocation corrected. (B3) X-Ray – Dislocated elbow with humeroulnar alignment altered."

"In view of the above notes made by the duty doctor / nurse it is clear that the injury caused to the newborn baby is dislocation and not subluxation. The Documents speaks for itself," noted the Consumer Court.

Now, in order to understand who is responsible for the dislocation, the Commission noted, "it is an admitted fact that the dislocation had occurred while the mother and child were in the care and custody of the opposite party hospital. The Opposite Party contented that the dislocation might have caused due to mishandling of the relatives of the baby who visited her. But the Opposite Party failed to prove the same."

"The Opposite Party themselves stated that too many relatives visited the newborn baby on 08-03-2019, It is general practice, that the hospitals do not allow too-many visitors to the hospital. But in the instant case, the Opposite Party is arguing that the dislocation was caused around the time when the relatives and the visitors of the newborn baby visited the hospital on 08-03-2019 permitting too-many visitor is itself negligence by the Opposite Party Hospital administration. The Opposite Party was duty-bound to restrict the number of visitors but the opposite party failed to do so," further observed the Commission.

"Permitting too-many relatives itself is negligence of the hospital. When the mother and new born baby are in the care and custody of the Opposite Party Hospital, it's their duty to take all precautions for their safety and wellbeing. The Opposite Party Hospital has failed to take the standard of care that they are bound to take-care-of," read the judgment.

Thus, clarifying that even though it cannot be ascertained as due to whose negligent acts the incident of dislocation of the right elbow of newborn baby was caused, the Commission noted that it is clear that the dislocation had happened while the child was in the care and custody of the hospital.

Opining it to be a case of defective service by the Hospital Administration, the Commission noted,

"The Hospital is bound to take care of their patients. But they have failed in doing such duty, which has caused the dislocation of the right elbow of newborn baby. Any harm caused due to the negligent acts on the part of the Opposite Party Hospital staff contracts liability. The patients expect only diligent and proper care. If any of the acts or omission of the hospital staffs are negligent within the hospital will be vicariously liable."

Finally, allowing the Complaint in part, the District Consumer Court of Hyderabad directed the treating hospital to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for causing inconvenience and hardship to the minor child and another Rs 10,000 towards costs of litigation within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

To read the order, click on the link below.