Back
2009(4) CPR 36
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Neerja Singh, Presiding Member and J.P. Vyas, Member
Prakash Nursing Home –Appellant
versus
Ajay Khandel and Anr. –Respondents
First Appeal Nos.1119 and 1123 of 2005
Decided on 30.4.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Deepesh Joshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
If one of the risks inherent in the operation actually took place and led to further complications, it cannot be said to be deficiency on the part of the doctor.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Medical Negligence—Caesarean operation was taken up on wife of complainant on 29.12.2003 for delivery of child—Condition of patient deteriorated and on 1.1.2004 patient was referred to other Hospital and she died on 14.1.2004—District Forum held doctor negligent on ground that deceased was not provided proper post operative care and that doctor should not have undertaken treatment once the membranes had ruptured and should have referred to higher centre—Appeal—Reports and opinions of doctors placed on record by both sides were contradictory and differed in their conclusions—Record showed that deceased had a ruptured membrane and was having no contractions—Operation was necessity and rather it was delayed as complainant delayed in giving consent—Despite precautions deceased developed infection which in turn developed in septicemia and septic shock, renal complications and led to DIC—If one of the risks inherent in operation actually took place and led to further complications, it could not be said to be deficiency in service—No deficiency or negligence on part of doctors could be said proved—Impugned order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 9 to 11 and 16 to 19)
Neerja Singh, Presiding Member—Both these appeal Nos. 1119/2005 and 1123/ 2005 taken up together, arise from the order dated 18.5.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khandwa directing the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs. 2,08,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as costs, on account of medical negligence in the treatment given to the wife of complainant No.1.
2. Complainant No.1 is the husband of Smt. Shivangi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and complainant No. 2 is her minor son. The facts of the case as depicted by them are that the deceased, who was pregnant, consulted opposite party No.1, Dr. (Smt.) M. Obeja on 6.8.2003. She was told that everything was normal. On 29.12.2003, she was brought with labour pains to Dr. (Smt.) M. Obeja, who instead of trying for normal labour performed a caesarean operation in haste. After the operation the doctor went away to Nagpur, without entrusting her patients to any other doctor. As no instructions had been given, the employees of the nursing home refused to attend to the deceased. Due to the negligence in the operation, she was unable to pass urine or stool. Her condition became very serious. Dr. (Smt.) M. Obeja returned on 1.1.2004 and referred the deceased to Choithram Hospital, Indore at 10 p.m. No attendant accompanied her and no treatment paper were given to them. There they were informed that the kidney of the deceased had failed. Blood and pus was oozing out of her stitches. A huge amount was spent on her treatment at Choithram Hospital but she died on 14.1.2004.
3. Respondent No.1 Dr. (Smt.) M. Obeja states that she is an MBBS, MS with 22 years experience and has received 10 gold medals. She states that the deceased was brought to the nursing home on 29.12.2003 with leaking all night, in efforts to deliver the child at Harsud, by local midwives. As there were chances of infection and danger to the child, she was given medication and injections to prevent infection and advised immediate operation. But her husband and father-in-law did not give permission, so another patient was taken in for operation. The doctor avers that in spite of severe leakage the relatives did not give permission and at 3 p.m. they were told to take the deceased elsewhere. On receiving that threat, they gave consent. After the operation the condition of the deceased remained satisfactory. The doctor further states that on 30.12.2003, her aged widowed mother suffered an accident and fractured her leg, for which she had to rush to Nagpur. The patients, in her absence, were looked after by her husband, Dr. S.N. Obeja, Asstt. Surgeon, and Gynaecologist Dr. Raksha Sharma. She examined the patient everyday. On 30.12.2003, the deceased had started taking liquids and some solids, and her catheter removed. Dr. Raksha Sharma examined the deceased on 31.12.2003 and found her normal. On 1.1.2004 when Dr. Raksha Sharma came for an emergency delivery early in the morning, she examined the deceased, who told her that she was feeling restless and had chest pain and intermittent stomach pain. Dr. Raksha Sharma advised Dr. S.N. Obeja to call a physician to examine her. Dr. D.K. Garde, MD (Medicine) was called and he examined her. At 10 a.m. her blood pressure fell to 70. She was given intensive treatment and at 12.30 p.m. her BP improved to 100/70. However there was no urine output. When she returned from Nagpur at 2 p.m., she referred her to Choithram Hospital, Indore as there was no urine output and dialysis was necessary, which was not available at Khandwa. The doctor contends that due to the delay in the operation the chances of infection increased. Leaking can sometimes result in septicemia, DIC and Amniotic fluid embolism. The deceased suffered from these complications. She denies any negligence on her part.
4. Opposite party No. 2, Choithram Hospital, Indore, states that the deceased was brought in a serious condition with septicemia with DIC and acute renal failure with acute respi
