IMPORTANT POINT
Where negligence evident, principle of res ipsa loquitur operates and complainant does not have to prove anything as thing (res) proves itself,in such case for respondent to prove that he taken care and done duty to repel charge of negligence.

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—Parveen Taneja @ Pooja (since deceased, referred to as “patient”), the wife of the complainant, Mr. Tej Bhan Taneja approached Dr. Asha Kiran of Civil Hospital, Mansa, on 15.05.2009. She performed ultrasonography examination (USG), which was reported as cardiac activity of fetus was absent. Hence, she advised the patient to take second opinion. Patient approached the OP/Dr. Monica Singla (OP-2) at Mother & Child Care Hospital i.e. hospital of OP-1. The OP-2 advised and forced to undergo abortion, otherwise complications by fetus could produce poison in her body. It was assured that the abortion is minor process, which could take only fifteen minutes. The OP-2 performed abortion at 4.20 PM, during procedure, four units of blood was transfused, till 7.10 p.m. Thereafter, patient was referred to Ludhiana for higher treatment. The complainant arranged ambulance and during shifting there was no breathing of Pooja, who had already passed away. The patient was taken to Nova Heart Institute and Research Centre, Bhatinda, where Dr. Sukhdev Singh checked the patient and declared her “brought dead” and issued a letter in this regard. The postmortem (PM) was not conducted at Civil Hospital, Mansa, therefore dead body was cremated on 16.05.2009. The OP certified on 24.05.2009, that the cause of death was due to possibility of air embolism.

2. Alleging medical negligence against OPs, who were responsible for death of his wife, the complainant and his two minor children filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum”) and prayed for total compensation of Rs. 10 lacs, along with interest.

3. The District Forum accepted the complaint and asked the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.05.2009. Against the order of the District Forum, the OP preferred first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”), which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition filed by the OPs.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/OPs at admission stage. He vehemently denied medical negligence on the part of the OPs. He brought our attention to the USG report of Civil Hospital, Mansa and notes printed on the lower portion of that report, which is reproduced as under:-

1. No surgery of procedure advised on the basis of this report only.

2. No single scan is sufficient to diagnose a congenital anomaly repeated scans after every 2 weeks are need after 12 weeks of pregnancy up to the end.”

5. Counsel further submitted that, the patient initially had continuous bleeding for 1 ½ month. Therefore, after examination, she took decision of D&C (MTP). It was 3rd pregnancy, which was conceived within a short span, after previous delivery. She underwent, previously two cesarean operations (LSCS), the 2nd child was only 6 months old. Therefore, after explaining the risks and taking proper consent, the OP performed D&C. The patient was shifted to the ward after D & C procedure, who suddenly developed a fall in blood pressure. She was given Dopamine drip and other medication and at 6.00 p.m., blood pressure was un-recordable. Another medical opinion was also taken and it was decided to shift the patient to higher centre. In the meantime, patient was transfused four units of blood. At 7.00 pm, patient became critical, hence, she was shifted to higher centre with suspicion of air embolism.

6. We have perused the entire medical record and the case summary maintained by the OP. It is clear that it was pregnancy of 9.3 weeks. The USG report showed impression as ‘missed abortion’. The OP2’s prescription slip revealed only history; nothing is mentioned about clinical findings. The Ex. A-3 to A-6 revealed detailed explanation about the patient’s treatment. It should be borne in mind that there was sudden drop in blood pressure