1

Date of filing : 30-11-2017

Date of disposal :26-10-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

:: NELLORE ::

Wednesday, this the 26th day of OCTOBER, 2022.

Quorum: Sri Ginka Reddy Sekhar, B.L., M.A., M.C.J., B.Ed., President,
Sri K.Venkateswarlu, B.Com., B.L.,M.L., Member
SmtG.BalaSudha, M.Com., LL.M. Women Member

Consumer Complaint No.51/2018

RasheelaBhanuShaik,
W/o Fatheem P.
Aged about 25 years, Muslim,
Residing at A.S.Pet,
Nellore District. … Complainant

Vs.

1.Christian Medical College and Hospital,

Rep. by its Director,
Ida Scudder Road,
Vellore – 632 004

2.Dr.Ruby Jose, MD., DGO.,

Professor and Head, OG IV Unit,
Christian Medical College and Hospital,
Vellore, Tamilnadu State,

(Opposite party No.2 is added as per orders in

I.A.No.168/2019 dated 16-10-2019) … Opposite parties 1 and 2

This complaint coming on 18-10-2022 before us for final hearing in the

presence of Sri P. Ayyapa Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and

Sri K.Ramesh Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 and the opposite

party No.2 remained absent and having stood over for consideration till this

day, this Commission passed the following:

ORDER
(By Ginka Reddy Sekhar, President)

1. The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2

under section - 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays, to direct the

opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.19,90,000/- together with

subsequent interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.19,90,000/- from the date of this
 2

complaint till the date of realization to the complainant, to pay costs of this

complaint to the complainant and grant such other relief and submits to allow

the complaint with costs.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows that :-

The complainant was undergone caesarean operation on 27-11-2015

with opposite party-1 hospital. After that she developed stomach-ache etc.,

and she informed the same to the opposite parties on 02-12-2015, but no

improvement. She was also developed other problems. She also approached

several hospitals for her stomach-ache but not cured. Finally, the doctor of

KIMS hospital diagnosed as Gossypibomaie acute intestinal obstruction (Small

bowel obstruction) and it develops infections. The complainant further

submitted that the said foreign body is surgical mop. The complainant

submitted that the opposite party-1 hospital doctors negligently kept the

surgical mop in her body, which resulted severe pain and health complications

etc., to the complainant. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the

opposite party No.1 on 18-11-2017 demanding to pay an amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- for the expenses and compensation for their negligence in

doing the operation to the complainant and the said notice was received by the

opposite parties on 22.11.2017 and issued reply only and failed to comply with

the demand made by the complainant and hence the complainant submits to

allow the complaint with costs.

3. The opposite party No.1 filed written version with the following averments

that:-

The opposite party No.1 denies all the allegations mentioned in the

complaint and it’s affidavit except those that are specifically admitted by them
to be true.

The opposite party No.1 submitted that this Forum has no

jurisdiction to entertain this matter as per the complaint, the alleged

treatment was occurred at Vellore Tamilnadu State and that this complaint
 3

is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as per the complaint, number of

Hospitals were involved in the alleged treatment of the complainant and that

filing of this complaint is barred by limitation.

The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the total alleged

claim of the complainant made in the petition are all false and those are

invented for the purpose of the complaint and the same is to harass the

opposite party-1 and to get wrongful gains and that the complainant’s other

allegations are denied. The opposite party No.1 further submitted that there

is no cause of action as alleged in the complaint.

The opposite party No.1 submitted that as per their records, the

complainant had approached them on 29-05-2015 with 13 weeks of

pregnancy. She had total of seven antenatal visits with their hospital,

which were uneventful. She was admitted for labour induction at 39+

weeks in view of suspected large baby. She was admitted to labour room in

spontaneous labour on 26-11-2015 at 8.00 pm. On 27-11-2015, at 4-30

a.m. cervix was found to be 4 cms dilated. Four hours later, she was found

to be 5 cms dilated. The baby had passed meconium in utero, hence labour

was augmented with oxytocin drips. After her request epidural analgesia

was given. After another four hours, there was no progress in labour and

cervix was showed 5 cm dilatation. She was seen by the consultant in

charge of labour room and decision for doing caesarean section (LSCS) was

made. Indication for doing Lower segment caesarean section (LSCS) was

arrest of dilatation.

The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the LSCS was

carried out by the senior call and the consultant in charge of labour room of

the said hospital. It was a straight forward LSCS as per operation notes and

mop counts were correct. A healthy baby girl weighing 3.75 kgs.was born

at 4.25 pm on 27.11.2015. As per hospital records, the mop count at the

time of closing the abdomen was correct. That on 28-11-2015, catheter was

removed and iv fluids were stopped.

 4

The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the complainant

passed urine after removal of catheter. In the evening, she developed fever

of around 100F and mild abdominal distension, but there was no evidence

of peritonitis. She was kept nil per oral and managed on iv drips. Her blood

tests showed evidence of infection and urine culture was suggestive of

urinary tract infection for which she was started on antibiotics and fever

settled with that. She was seen daily in morning as well as evening rounds

in the ward by the consultant in charge of hospital.

The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the complainant’s

bowel distension settled on iv fluids. On post OP day 4, she moved her

bowels and there was no abdominal distension. At discharge, she was

found to be afebrile for five days with no evidence of infection. She was

discharged on 03-12-2015 morning. The complainant did not come back for

her suture removal nor her six week postnatal check up.

The opposite party No.1 denies that the allegations stated in the

complaint that at the time of discharge, they told the complainant that

everything would be alright within few days and it is totally wrong and at

the time of discharge she has no fever and she has no evidence of any

infection. The opposite party’s doctors have advised her to come back for

suture removal but she did not turn up and also she failed to come for her

postnatal check up after six weeks from the date of discharge. This opposite

party denies that the complainant suffered due to the negligence of their

doctors who put the 18x17 cm cotton mop while the LSCS is done. This is

totally false allegation. As per their hospital records, the mop count at the

time of closing the abdomen was correct. Therefore, there is no chance to

retain the mop. It is very wonder and surprise to the opposite party-1 that

the complainant has visited approximately 9 hospitals but not even a single

visit to the hospital of this opposite party who gave the treatment. The

opposite party sent their detailed reply dated 10-01-2018 to the legal notice

dated 18-11-2017 issued on behalf of the complainant.

 5

The opposite party No.1 further submitted that as detailed above, it

is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they have exercised due care

and given correct, proper, necessary and possible treatment to the

complainant. There was absolutely no room for any negligence nor any

deficiency of service. Hence, there is neither any degree of negligence on

medical professional while performing the operation/procedure nor any

deficiency in the quality of professional service of opposite party. Therefore,

all the allegations mentioned in the complaint are stoutly denied and

rejected. Thus, the opposite party further denied that the complainant is

undergoing great mental agony and stress because of the so called

negligence and deficient service. In these circumstances, the opposite party

is not liable to pay any amounts to the complainant as being claimed and

hence the opposite party No.1 submitted for dismissal of the complaint

against the opposite party No.1 with costs.

4. Opposite party No.2 remained absent. On behalf of opposite party No.2

no written version was filed and documents were filed.

5. On behalf of the complainant, the chief affidavit and additional chief

Affidavit of PW1 filed and Exs.A1 to Ex.A21 documents were marked.

6. On behalf of the opposite party-1, the chief affidavit and additional chief

affidavit of RW1 filed and Exs.B1 to B24 documents were marked.

7. Written arguments and additional written arguments on behalf of the

Complainant filed.

8. Written arguments on behalf of the opposite parties not filed. But synopsis

of arguments on behalf of opposite parties is filed.

9. Arguments on behalf of both parties heard.

10. Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant.

11. Perused the synopsis of written arguments filed on behalf of the opposite

Parties.
 6

12. Now, the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite

parties 1 and 2 is having territorial jurisdiction in this Commission?

2) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite

parties 1 and 2 is having any pecuniary jurisdiction in this
Commission ?

3) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation

or not

4) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite

parties 1 and 2 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
alleging deficiency of service against the opposite Parties is
maintainable?

5) To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

13. POINT NO.1: The learned counsel for the complainant by relying upon the

evidence affidavit and arguments that the complainant undergone caesarean

operation on 27-11-2015 with opposite party-1 hospital. After that she

developed stomach ace etc., and she informed the same to the opposite parties

on 02-12-2015, but no improvement and further other problems were

developed and on visiting several hospitals, finally, the doctor of KIMS

hospital, Nellore diagnosed the problem as acute intestinal obstruction (Small

bowel obstruction) and it develops infections. The complainant further

submitted that the said foreign body is surgical mop. The complainant

submitted that the opposite parties hospital doctors negligently kept the

surgical mop in her body, while performing surgery which resulted severe pain

and health complications etc., to the complainant.

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the problem was

find out in KIMS hospital, Nellore and the cause of action arose at Nellore and

this Forum is having territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the

complainant further relied on a decision of the Hon`ble High Court of A.P.

reported in 2009(3) ALP page 634 (DB of A.P. High Court, the complainant

issued notices to the opposite parties from Nellore and the opposite parties also

issued reply addressed to Nellore and so when the reply issued to Nellore Ex.A6

comes within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

 7

The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the

negligence of the opposite parties find out of his notice in KIMS Hospital,

Nellore in which the reasons for problem was diagnosed and to cure the

problem, surgery was done at Nellore to rectify the medical negligence of the

opposite parties and so part of cause of action has arose within the jurisdiction

of this Forum.

In the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Under Sec. 11 (c) the cause of

action wholly or in part arises.

As per documents the problem of the complainant was diagnosed (EXA2)

surgery was conducted and rectified the problem at Nellore (The documents

filed by the advocate commissioner proves the same also). So, in our opinion

the part of cause of action arose at Nellore and this Forum is having territorial

jurisdiction. So, this point is answered in favour of the complainant and

against the opposite parties.

14. POINTNO.2 : The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he

claimed Rs.19,90,000/- in total. Out of which medical expenditure with

transport etc. is Rs.6,00,000/- and compensation claimed for mental and

physical sufferance is Rs.13,90,000/-. Whereas the learned counsel for the

opposite parties vehemently argued that an amount of Rs.67,850/- spent as

per Ex. B-23 has not included and if the said amount is included total amount

of consideration is Rs.20,57,950/- and so he submitted that this Forum lacks

pecuniary jurisdiction.

On perusal of the said Document Ex.B-23 and the entire record and

averments, the complainant claimed Rs.19,90,000/- in all. Under these

circumstances, we have to read Sec. 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,

1986 which is extracted below ;

The District Forum shall have the jurisdiction where the value of goods

and services and the compensation claimed if any does not exceed

Rs.20,00,000/-.
 8

On perusal of the complaint, the complainant claimed Rs.19,90,000/-

only in total. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that an amount of

Rs.67,950/- also to be included in the claim of the complainant. As seen from

the complaint, the complainant has not claimed the said amount and the said

amount might be included in the medical expenditure or the complainant has

not claimed the said amount. In our opinion, it is the choice of the complainant

either to include all the bills or to give up some bills. Un claimed amounts

does not count for jurisdiction. The complainant claimed in total

Rs.19,90,000/- only. So, in our opinion the complaint filed by the complainant

is within the pecuniary jurisdiction under Sec.11 (1) of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986.

So, Point No.2 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the

opposite parties.

15. POINT NO.3 :

The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that the

complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of

limitation.

As seen from the record, the complainant filed the complaint in the

Forum on 30.11.2017.

Under sec.24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 regarding Limitation

period is explained which is extracted as follows;

The District Forum, the State Commission, or the National

Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the

date on which the cause of action has arisen.

The cause of action arose on the day when the problem is found

out and the complainant admitted for surgery i.e. on 17.6.2017 and removed the

foreign body i.e. surgical mop. So, the cause of action arose on the day when the

problem or negligence arose i.e. on 17.6.2017 and the complaint is filed on

 9

30.11.2017, which is within the limitation period of 2 years. The complaint is

not barred by limitation.

So, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and

against the opposite parties.

16.POINT NO.4

The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the

complainant is regular visitor to opposite party-1 hospital due to her pregnancy

from 4th month of her pregnancy and the opposite parties doctors did primary

lower segment caesarean section operation on 27.11.2015 and after the said

operation the condition became more deteriorated and she is suffering with

fever, vomiting and stomach ache and when informed, after investigations the

opposite parties doctors informed that the same is due to infections and

continued treatment up to 2-12-2015 and discharged the complainant, stating

that her condition will be set right shortly. But as no improvement and she is

suffering with fever, cold and stomach ace every day and she is unable to visit

opposite parties hospital every time she approached Dr Ramalakshmi nursing

home and has no improvement in her health condition and another

complication of bleeding developed she took treatment for 2 months from Dr

sandhyababu in Vellore by spending lot of money and even though stomach

ache and bleeding not controlled she approached different hospitals for

treatment but stomach ache and fever is recurring her condition is

deteriorating day by day and at last she consulted Lotus hospital Nellore and

on their advice consulted KIMS hospital Nellore and admitted as in patient on

17-06-2017 and Dr Vamsi Krishna of KIMS hospital, Nellore after examining

the reports advised to undergo operation and the complainant undergone

surgery and the KIMS hospital Doctors did the endileostomy and diognised as

acute intestinal obstruction (small bowel) due to foreign body of 18 x 17 cm is

the source for all the infection and it damaged the intestines and it became the

source for all the problems and the foreign body is nothing but surgical mop

used while operation is done and the same must have been removed while
 10

suturing is done, but the opposite parties Doctors negligently sutured without

removing the said surgical mop.

As per evidence of P.W.2Dr.Vamsi Krishna, it is clearly proved that the

complainant got admitted in their hospital on 17.6.2017 and after

investigations, she was diagnosed to be given for acute small bowel obstruction

due to foreign body. She had history of caesarean (LSCS) during the year 2015

at CMC Vellore. In the evidence of doctor P.W.2, it clearly revealed that 20 x 20

Cms tailed mob was found and it was removed by surgery. In Biopsy report

filed through the advocate commissioner, clearly reveals that in Microscopic

examination received a mass of cotton sponge measuring 18 x 17 cms and

received small bowel measuring 22 cm in length, 6 cm in diameter. Cut section

one end shows narrowing of lumen with thickened wall and ulcerated mucosa.

Rest of mucosa appears normal. So, it clearly proves that surgical mop was

kept in the body of the complainant while performing the caesarean operation

by the opposite parties.

Further, Ex.B8 Sponge Account Record is a crucial document, filed by

the opposite part-1. On keen perusal of the said Ex.B8 printed sheet there is

two parts. First part contains printed matter in several rows containing several

details and second part is having some writings and signatures etc. Out of

which, in 7th row (1st part in column) it is clearly printed that sponge 9” x 9”

six in bundle. But the number six was corrected and striked out and written

as “5” in hand writing . So, we understand that the six number was corrected

as 5, to cover up the laches of the opposite parties. The said remaining one

mop has kept in the body of the complainant and sutured.

Every hospital has to maintain standard recommendations can be

decreased by keeping a thorough count at least thrice (pre-operative, intra-

operative and post-operative) especially during emergency operation, complete

exploration of abdominal cavity by the surgeon before closure if there is any

doubt in the counts. As per W.H.O. recommendations count should always be

done separately in a consistent sequence by two to similar persons with their

 11

name being noted in the count sheet or nursing record. Methodical exploration

of surgical wound by the operating surgeon decreases the livelihood of living

sponges. Immediate intra-operative x-rays should be done if there is suspicion

in count. Never technologies for detection include two dimensional bar code

systems was the first technological approach. It incorporates a specific code to

each sponge which prevents double count. But as seen from the record, the

opposite parties simply corrected the figures in the count sheet. As per

discharge summary the complainant is having 100F,fever. When the patient is

in fever condition, the opposite parties have to follow the said

recommendations or intra-operative X rays have to be taken. But they did not

done it. It is an admitted fact.

On perusal of the entire documents and averments of both counsel, the

complainant suffered a lot on roaming several hospitals to cure his problem

which arose after the caesarean caused by the opposite parties hospital and

after that the KIMS hospital Doctors did the endileostomy and diognised as

acute intestinal obstruction (small bowel) due to foreign body of 18 x 17 cm.

After the surgery there was no other surgical intervention also. Hence we are

of the considered view that the foreign body was left behind the body of the

complainant, by the opposite parties hospital at the first instance only during

caesarean operation and the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is also applicable in

this case. After the surgery at opposite parties hospital, the complainant has

not undergone any surgery, except taking treatment by way of medicines etc.

from different hospitals. No foreign body directly enters into the human body.

So, it clearly proves that during the surgery, the opposite parties kept the said

surgical mop in the body of the complainant. So, the said circumstances, the

negligence on the part of the opposite parties is proved.

To support this the complainant cited decision reported in 2017 (1) ALD

(Cons.)12 (NC).

In the said decision their lord ship held that patient got cured after

removal of foreign body but she was subjected for major surgery, her intestine
 12

was resected. The above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the

present case.

The opposite parties cited several decisions, but the same are not

applicable to the facts of the present case and so we are not explained the

same.

In our opinion no amount or money can turn back the time and revers

the harm already done but receiving compensation for unnecessary surgery or

surgical errors can at least help the patient to overcome some of the challenges

that lie ahead.

Further question arises for determination to ascertain the quantum of

compensation for the loss. The complainant had suffered a lot by roaming

several hospitals due to negligence of opposite parties without any fault of her.

For determination of quantum of compensation, it is necessary to consider the

medical expenditure incurred, pain and sufferings both by the complainant

and her attendant family members.

We take reliance from the landmark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

KunnalSahas case (2014) I SCC 384 which discussed the principals involved in

determination of compensation in cases of medical cases. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that there is no restrictions that Courts can award

compensation only up to what is demanded by the complainant. It is the duty

of Tribunals, Commissions and Courts to consider relevant facts and evidence

in respect of facts and circumstances of each and every case for awarding just

and reasonable compensation. The principal of just and reasonable

compensation is based on RESTITUTIO in INTEGRUM i.e., the complainant

must receive the sum of money which would in the same position as he would

have been, if he has not sustain the wrong. The complainant incurred medical

expenditure in different hospital, she bare physical suffering and mental agony

as per records and bills. The patient incurred Rs. 6,00,000/- in different

hospitals. It is not denied by the opposite parties.

 13

The Complainant unnecessarily had to roaming around a number of

hospitals for her complaint of continuous abdominal pain and health

complications, after the surgery.

The sufferings and agony of the patient, huge medical expenditure for

medical services already undergone by the complainant, taken into account

and the complainant has incurred expensive medical treatment and therefore

we feel that just and reasonable compensation is to be awarded to the

complainant.

The complainant prayed for Rs.19,90,000/- in all counts. We feel it is on

high side. So, in our opinion an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakhs

only ) towards compensation in all counts is sufficient to meet the ends of

justice.

17. POINT NO.5: In view of our answering on point No.4 we are of the opinion

that the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed partly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1

and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs

only) in all counts towards compensation and damages to the complainant

The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay a sum of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the costs to the complainant.

The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to comply the order within 45

days from the date of receipt of the order, in default the opposite parties 1 and

2 are directed to pay interest at 9% p.a. on the ordered amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- from the date of receipt of the order.

Typed to my dictationby the Stenographer and corrected and

pronounced by us in the Open Commission this the 26th day of October,

2022.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER W.MEMBER PRESIDENT

 14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW1 16-07-2018 : RasheelaBhanuShaik wife of Faheem, aged 25 years,

Muslim, House wife at present and residing at
and
A.S.Pet, Nellore District.
13-01-2020

PW2 05-02-2019 : Dr.SriP.R.Vamsi Krishna, S/o.P.Rajendra Prasad,

aged 40 years, Hindu, Surgical Gastroenterologist,
And
KIMS hospital, Nellore. (Advocate Commissioner
30-04-2019
report and Chief/cross examination.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

RW1 30-05-2019 : Dr.K.Prasad Mathews, S/o. P.M.Mathews, aged about

55 years, practicing at Christian Medical College,
AND
Hospital Campus, Ida Scudder Road, Vellore –
17-02-2020
632004.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 02-12-2015 : Photostat copy of Discharge summary issued by the

1stopposite party.

Ex.A2 24-06-2017 : Office copy of Department of Surgical Gastro

Discharge summary issued by KIMS hospital.

Ex.A3 25-09-2017 : Office copy of Department of Surgical Gastro

Discharge summary issued by KIMS hospital.

Ex.A4 --- : Compact Disk containing the operation and removal

of mop.

Ex.A5 18-11-2017 : Photostat copy of Legal notice got issued by the

counsel for the complainant to the opposite party.

Along with one regd.post receipt.

Ex.A6 10-01-2018 : Office copy of Reply given by the opposite party to the

counsel for the complainant.

 15

Ex.A7 21-01-2016 : Photostat copy of Birth certificate and original

27-12-2015 admission card along with service request receipt.
14-02-2017
Ex.A8 25-12-2015 : Ultra Sound of pelvis Prescription of Sandhya

16-03-2016 hospital.

Ex.A9 27-02-2017 : Medical prescriptions (bunch) by Chittoor hospital.

Ex.A10 27-02-2017 : Complete Urine Examination by Babu Nursing Home

and Medical bill containing.

Ex.A11 10-05-2016 : Photostat copy of Medical prescriptions of Abhiram

Hospital.

Ex.A12 13-05-2016 : Photostat copy of Medical prescriptions by

AbhiramInstitute of Medical Sciences.

Ex.A13 upto : Bunch of medical bills issued by Premier hospital.

16-06-2017

Ex.A14 Upto : Photostat copy of Bunch of medical bills issued KIMS

26-09-2017 Hospital, Nellore.

Ex.A15 Upto : Bunch of medical bills issued KIMS Hospital, Nellore

24-06-2017

Ex.A16 16-06-2017 : Photostat copy of Discharge summary issued by

Premier Hospital.

Ex.A17 16-06-2017 : Photostat copy of Department of Pathology report by

Premier Hospital.

Ex.A18 15-06-2017 : Office copy of Department of Bio chemistry report by

Premier Hospital.

Ex.A19 03-06-2017 : Haematology report by Medica Diagnostics.

 16

Ex.A20 15-06-2017 : CT scan Female Abdomen report issued by Premier

Hospital.

Ex.A21 15-06-2017 : Ultra Sound of Abdomen scan report issued by

Premier Hospital.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B1 --- : Photostat copy of Outpatient record & antenatal

record &labour record of Christian Medical College

Hospital, S.INDIA.

Ex.B2 28-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Admission record & general consent

of Christian Medical College Vellore.

Ex.B3 02-12-2015 : Photostat copy of Discharge summary issued by

Christian Medical College, Vellore-4.Obstetrics

&Gynaecology Unit IV.

Ex.B4 --- : Photostat copy of Labour record issued by Christian

Medical College, Vellore.

Ex.B5 27-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Caesarean Consent Form issued by

Obstetrics &Gynaecology Unit IV.

Ex.B6 27-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Perioperative record – nurses issued

by Christian Medical College, Vellore .

Ex.B7 27-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Pre –Anastheti Review &Anaesthesia

recordissued by Christian Medical College, Vellore.

Ex.B8 27-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Operation record including sponge

account record issued by Christian Medical College,

Vellore.

Ex.B9 27-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Postoperative check listrecord

issued by Christian Medical College, Vellore .

Ex.B10 --- : Photostat copy of Progress record issued by Christian

Medical College, Vellore.

Ex.B11 --- : Photostat copy of Treatment order and instructions

 17

issued by Christian Medical College, Vellore .

Ex.B12 --- : Photostat copy of Doctors Medication orders and

nurses administration record issued by Christian

Medical College, Vellore.

Ex.B13 04-12-2015 : Photostat copy of Services provided for the patient –

check listrecord issued by Christian Medical College,

Vellore.

Ex.B14 28-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Direction to billing section and

Financial Guarantee issued by Christian Medical

College, Vellore .

Ex.B15 --- : Photostat copy of Intake and output recordissued by

Christian Medical College, Vellore .

Ex.B16 --- : Photostat copy of Comprehensive Plan Assessment

and Monitoring sheetissued by Christian Medical

College, Vellore .

Ex.B17 26-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Nursing Assessment sheet issued

by Christian Medical College, Vellore .

Ex.B18 --- : Photostat copy of Nursing Care planrecord issued by

Christian Medical College, Vellore .

Ex.B19 --- : Photostat copy of Pressure Sore Assessment, care and

monitoring formissued by Christian Medical College,

Vellore .

Ex.B20 27-11-2015 : Photostat copy of Patient Health Education

Formrecord issued by Christian Medical College,

Vellore .

Ex.B21 --- : Photostat copy of Nurses Daily Recordsissued by

Christian Medical College, Vellore .

Ex.B22 --- : Graphic (T.P.R) Chart

Ex.B23 --- : Inpatient Discharge Bill

 18

Ex.B24 --- : Sponge account record

Id/-

PRESIDENT

Copies to:

1) Sri P.Ayyapa Reddy, Advocate, Nellore.

2) Sri K.Ramesh Reddy, Advocate, Nellore

3) Dr.Ruby Jose, MD., DGO., Professor and Head, OG IV Unit,

Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamilnadu State,

Date when order copies were issued:

-ajl-
19