IMPORTANT POINT
Hospital/Doctor should not take unnecessary risks while treating a patient.

Vinay Kumar, Member—Appeal No.79 of 2005 is filed by Shri Vinod Prasad Nautiyal who was the Complainant before the Uttranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in CC No.07 of 2002. It is filed against Dr. Savitri Uniyal and five others, who were all opposite parties before the State Commission. The appellant/complaint has prayed for enhancement for the compensation from Rs.2.5 lacs to Rs.12 lacs. First Appeal No.129 of 2005 is against the same order of the State Commission and is filed by State of Uttranchal, Dr. Savitri Uniyal and Dr. Vasudev Uniyal, who were OPs in the proceedings before the State Commission. The prayer of the appellant is to set aside the order awarding compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs in favour of the Complainant. These two cross appeals, arising from the same order of the State Commission, are taken up together for disposal.

2. The case of the Complainant Shri V.P. Nautiyal before the State Commission was that in January, 1993 his wife was medically advised that she was two months pregnant. Thereafter, she was seen by OP-1 during May and June, 1993 and was admitted into the Hospital as her condition was explained to be serious, on 28.06.1993. Next day, at about 4.30 AM she delivered a baby boy through an operation. At about 5.30 AM she was shifted to the female hospital. The Complainant has alleged that non-availability of the oxygen cylinder and blood to be given to his wife, were instances of deficiency in service, which caused her death in the morning of about 7.15 a.m.

3. In his complainant alleging medical negligence, the Complaint took up the issue that for this operation, his wife was administered anesthesia by OP-2, who was not a qualified anesthetist, but an ophthalmologist. After the operation, the patient had a lot of bleeding but was not given any blood transfusion. According to Complainant, after the operation, his wife was made to walk to the women’s hospital. Thus, his case was that she died due to lack of care after the operation.

4. According to the OPs the deceased was already having pre-delivery bleeding on 28.6.1993 and was brought to the hospital in a critical state. Her condition compelled the doctor to resort to emergency operation. The operation was successful and a healthy baby was delivered after which the patient was shifted to the female hospital.

5. The State Commission has questioned the claim of the OPs that when wife of the complainant was brought on 28.6.1993 she was advised to go to Dehradun to a better equipped hospital, as the case was serious and complicated. The Commission has observed that there is nothing on record in writing, that the complainant was ever advised to take his wife to a better equipped hospital or ever told that the facilities in the hospital were not adequate to conduct the kind of operation required. The conclusion of the State Commission is that, this being a case of placenta previa with bladder invasion, it was potentially a life threatening condition. There is nothing on record to show that this fact was shared with the Complainant. In a case like this, the OP Nos.1 should not have conducted the operation, particularly when in her opinion, the case needed to be handled by a better equipped hospital.

6. The State Commission has also rejected the explanation justifying administration of anesthesia by a doctor (in this case an ophthalmologist), who was not a qualified anesthetist and held it to be an instance of gross negligence on the part of the OPs. As the appellant/opposite party knew that it was a complicated case, they should not have started the operation particularly when there was no qualified anesthetist and no blood for being given to the patient. They should have been referred the case to the nearby better equipped hospital at Srinagar.

7. The State Commission has also held the Government and the concerned authorities responsible for the state of affairs in the hospital, which was clearly lacking in necessary facilities. It i