SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008(3) CPR 264 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member
Baburao Vithal Lohakpure
& Anr. —Complainants
versus
Smt. Suniti Devi Singhania Hospital
and Medical Research Centre
& Ors. —Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint No. 44 of 1997
Decided on 16.8.2007

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Shri Sushil Bajaj, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 1:Shri Ashish Dholakia, Shri Arvind Kumar and Shri Abhishek Rao, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No. 2:Shri Rajiv Thakur, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 3:Ms. Shilpa Ovalekar, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
In a medical negligence case, the doctors and the concerned hospital have a responsibility to correctly explain their conduct and their records should prove that there was no negligence on their part.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) —Deficiency in service—Medical Negligence—Complainant’s wife having menstruation problem for a month consulted OP 3 doctor who recommended hysterectomy—Complainant’s wife was admitted to OP hospital—On day of surgery, just fifteen minutes before its commencement, OP 2 Dr. anaesthetist met patient for the first time—OP 2 tried to insertendotrachea tube but he was unable to do so—In spite of difficulty in inserting tube, OP 2 doctor continued his attempts under anesthesia—Patient was deprived of sufficient oxygen and when OP 2 doctor finally put her back on artificial respiration, her pulse had reduced and her heart completely stopped at 2.30 p.m. —Complaint—Instantly, anaesthetist did not conduct proper pre-anaesthetic check up—OP 2 doctor met patient only half an hour prior to scheduled commencement of surgery—It is essential to maintain pre-anaesthetic records but case sheets were silent on that—OP 2 doctor had not taken average precautions which an anaesthetist had to take by not conducting a detailed pre-anaesthetic check up—Again his negligence in administering anesthesia had resulted in cardiac arrest which was self evident—Medical negligence by OP2 was proved beyond reasonable doubt—Complaint allowed awarding Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation to complainants. (Paras 71 to 77)

       Result: Complaint petition allowed.

       

ORDER

P.D. Shenoy, Member—A healthy well nourished lady, Mrs. Jayshree Lohakpure aged 38 years was admitted to the hospital on 23.2.1995 for hysterectomy and taken to the operation theatre at 1.40 p.m. on 24.2.1995 and declared dead at 3 p.m. before the commencement of surgery in the presence of anaesthetist, gynaecologist, nurses and lastly a surgeon and a chest specialist who came to the Operation Theatre (OT) a few minutes before her death. Can this be considered as a case of medical negligence? A detailed analysis of the case leaves no room for doubt.

Case of the complainant

2. Complainant No.1 is the husband of the patient Jayshree Lohakpure who is survived by her two children. Complainant No. 2 and No. 3 have filed this complaint through their next best friend and guardian, complainant No 1.

3. On the recommendations of Dr. Chandavarkar. Opposite Party No. 3 (OP No.3) was admitted to Smt. Suniti Devi Singhania Hospital and Medical Research Center, Thane. She was declared dead around 3 p.m. on 24.2.95 even before the actual surgery was commenced because of the negligent manner in which anaesthesia was administered by Dr. Page and also because of inadequate and negligent emergency medical aid provided by the opposite parties.

4. Mrs. Lohakpure having menstruation problem for a month consulted OP No. 3 who recommended hysterectomy. As the test results were satisfactory, surgery was fixed at 2 p.m. on 24.2.1995 and was admitted on the previous day to the hospital. Necessary fees were paid by the complainant. To get best possible treatment, the patient was admitted into the best class as per the booklet printed by the hospital titled ‘Patient guide and some useful information.’

5. Mrs. Lohakpure was prepared for surgery and taken to the OT at 1.30 p.m. At 1.45 p.m. just 15 minutes before the commencement of surgery Dr. Page, anaesthetist met the patient for the first time. After perfunctorily asking the patient some questions about her health, Dr. Page at 2.15 p.m. started administering her anaesthesia. Dr Chandavarkar, Gynaecologist arrived at 2 p.m. All her vital organs at that time were normal. Two nurses Mrs. Anni Polas and Mrs. Vatsama Ratankumar were also present. Though Mrs. Lohakpure was admitted to the hospital on 23.3.95 a day prior to the operation, Dr. Page did not examine her nor did he conduct preoperative anaesthetic check up. At 2.15 p.m. Dr. Page and Dr. Chandavarkar OP No.2 & 3, started preparing her for the operation. Dr. Page tried to insert the endotrachea tube but he was unable to do so. He then removed the tube and put her on artificial respiration. All her vital signs at that time were normal. He mentioned the difficulty in inserting the tube to Dr. Chandavarkar and Nurse Anni Polas heard him say this as well. Despite this difficulty Dr. Page continued his attempts under anaesthesia. The operation was not a vital life saving procedure, which could have been easily postponed. According to Dr. Page the reason that he could not insert the tube was because of the, “composition (arrangement anatomy) of the physique (body) of the patient and the Swaryantra (throat) the said tube could not go into the Swaryantra (throat).”

6. Dr Page despite the failed attempt, tried to insert the tube once again in exactly the same manner. He made no effort whatsoever to make an attempt which would overcome the alleged abnormality which he himself had stated only minutes ago existed nor did he adopt a different method to put her under anaesthesia. Forceful effort to reinsert the endotrachea tube caused laceration on her upper lip. As it was not an emergency procedure and as Dr. Page found an abnormality in the physique, the surgery could have been easily postponed. Instead a second and negligent attempt was made and due to this she was deprived of sufficient oxygen. Consequently, when he finally put her back on artificial respiration her pulse had reduced and her heart completely stopped at 2.30.p.m. Though the situation was d





















































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top