Back
2011(4) CPR 35
JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAMMU
G.D. Sharma, President and B.L. Saraf, Member
Deepak Gupta & Anr. —Complainants
versus
Dr. (Mrs.) N.D. Raina & Anr. —Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 2536 of 2003
Decided on 29.4.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. P.N. Raina, Advocate.
For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Ajay Vaid, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Expert has no authority to give judgment in favour of Doctor that she has not committed any professional misconduct.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) and 17—Medical services—Medical negligence—Unborn child in womb lost his life—Result of tests showed that pregnancy was normal—Tortitious act done by OP has rendered wife of complainant incapable of bearing any child throughout her life—In Nursing Home of OP, there was no such instrument where pre-mature baby could be kept—There was no arrangement for donation of blood and Donors had to go from one room to another—Facility of Blood Bank is a necessity where operation is to be done; otherwise it amounts to deficiency in rendering service—Professional conduct of OP is casual and negligent nature because in case of patient having history of Placenta Previa should have been advised complete rest and admission to a better institution having facilities of blood transfusion—No medical record which shows that blood matching of patient and of donors had been done prior to conducting operations—This omission can also be professional negligence of serious nature—OPs liable to reimburse complainants to the tune of Rs. 9 lac with 7% interest and cost of Rs. 10,000. (Paras 7 and 8)
G.D. Sharma, President— This is a case of alleged professional negligence against OP No.1 who runs a Private Clinic in Gandhi Nagar locality of Jammu city as Gynecologist and obstetrician since the year 1984. The allegations against her are that by treating complainant No.2 during her pregnancy in a casual and negligent manner, unborn child in the womb lost his life as well as, the unwanted removal of the uterus of complainant no. 2 was done and harm was caused to her bladder during the operation which was done in an unprofessional manner. The tortitious act done by OP No.1 has rendered complainant No.2 incapable of bearing any child throughout her life. The brief facts of the case are that complainant No.2 came into family way in the month of November and December, 2002. On 2.12.2002, she approached O.P No.1 for professional advice and treatment. OP No.1 examined her in her Private Nursing Home situated in 191/AD, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu (herein after to be referred to as Nursing Home). OP No. 1 advised ultrasonography and the same was got done on 4.12.2002 at Apollo Diagnostic Centre 34 A/C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Complainant No.2 again visited OP No. 1 on 19.12.2002 and she advised her to visit again on 8.1.2003 and 12.1.2003. On 12.1.2003, again ultrasonography was advised along with blood and urine tests which were got done at Friends X-Ray, ECG Clinical Lab and Ultrasound Satwari Chowk, Jammu by Dr. Nariner Sharma (MD). For confirmatory value those very tests were also got conducted at S.K Diagnostic Clinical Laboratory, 191A/D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu which laboratory was owned and run by O.P No.1. The result of the tests showed that the pregnancy was normal. On 8.3.2003, OP No.1 advised Ultras Sonography which was got done at JKCT Scan and Research Centre, 1A, A/C Green Belt Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and in the report it was stated that it was normal pregnancy of 19-20 weeks gestation with placenta previa and dilated cervical blood vessel. Again on 13.3.2003, OP No.1 checked complainant No.2 and opined that pregnancy was normal. Complainant No.1 is the husband of complainant No.2 who used to accompany his wife for regular check-ups but OP No. 1 never allowed him to enter her premises to meet his wife during check-up/examination. He was in this manner always deprived to get information regarding the conditions of his wife and the un-born child. On 9.4.2003, the check-up was conducted and no bleeding was seen and it was assured that everything would go in a normal way. On 13.4.2003, bleeding from vagina started to complainant No.2 and she was rushed by complainant No.1 to the Nursing Home of OP No.1, where she was kept admitted till 14.4.2003 (11.00 a.m.). She was discharged after recording the following facts in the prescription “Pregnosis of the case explained risk factor to mother and factors explained. Advised to arrange for blood donors.” Despite all the above stated findings recorded in the prescription nothing was explained or advised to complainant No.1 or to complainant No.2. On the contrary, OP No.1 told complainant No.2 that she could do normal house-hold chores but not heavy work, loosing complete sight of the fact that the patient with placenta previa with bleeding is to be advised complete bed rest and not even to go to bathroom as the slightest bleeding could adversely affect the foetus which may endanger both child or the mother. Without complainant No.2’s complete recovery, OP No.1 discharged her from the nursing home despite the presence of “placenta previa with bleeding’. OP No.1 had failed in her duty to refer complainant No.2 to Government Medical Hospital; Jammu because on 13.4.2003, the patient had bled for one hour completely thus failed to save the life of un-born child.
2. During the intervening night of 16/17th April 2003, complainant No.2 started bleeding at about 2.30 a.m. and she was rushed to the nursing home of OP No.1. After slight recovery, OP No.1 told complainant No.1 to take complainant No.2
