Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President, Dr. Rekha Sharma and Diwan Singh Chauhan, Members
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
ANITA - Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 1304 and 1662 of 2005
Decided on : 07-12-2009
Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of a medical practitioner in emergency situations, the significance of obtaining consent, and the necessity of hysterectomy in life-threatening situations.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Medical Negligence in Maternity Care - Abnormalities of the Third Stage of Labour, Consent, Negligence, Emergency Treatment - [ABNORMALITIES OF THE THIRD STAGE OF LABOUR] - [Section 1: Postpartum Haemorrhage, Section 2: Predisposing Causes, Section 3: Prognosis, Section 4: Hysterectomy] - The court discussed the medical negligence in maternity care, emphasizing the significance of postpartum haemorrhage and the necessity of hysterectomy in life-threatening situations. The court highlighted the importance of obtaining consent and the discretion of a medical practitioner in emergency situations, ultimately influencing the decision to set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the doctor, seeking compensation for removal of uterus and mental agony. The doctor performed a caesarean operation and removed the complainant's uterus to save her life due to excessive bleeding. The complainant filed a complaint six months later, alleging negligence and loss of motherhood.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the doctor acted with due care and caution, saving the complainant's life in a critical situation. The court dismissed the complaint, setting aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around medical negligence, consent, and emergency treatment in maternity care, as well as the timing and motive behind the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretion of a medical practitioner in choosing treatment in emergency situations, the significance of obtaining consent, and the necessity of hysterectomy in life-threatening situations. The court also highlighted the timing and motive behind the complaint as influencing factors.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the complaint, finding in favor of the doctor.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - Vide this common order we shall dispose of above mentioned two appeals having arisen out of order dated 27.5.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala whereby on the complaint of complainant Smt. Anita alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party-Dr. Jai Mala Aggarwal, following relief was granted:
"Hence, the present complaint succeeds; liable to be accepted and the same is hereby allowed. Ops are jointly and severally directed to comply with the following directions within a period of 30 days after receipt of this order:
(i) To pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for removal of uterus.
(ii) To pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for harassment and mental torture.
(iii) To pay Rs. 2,000 towards costs of proceedings.
If this amount has not been paid within 30 days thereafter the OPs are liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. till its realisation."
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
Complainant Anita filed complaint before the District Forum with the averments that she was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party No. 2 - Dr. Jai Mala Aggarwal on 19.2.2002 for her delivery. She delivered a female child at about 8.30 p.m. after major operation which was conducted by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant remained under the treatment of opposite party No. 2 upto 27.2.2002. At the time of her discharge from the hospital, the complainant was disclosed that she would not be able to bear any other child in future because during the delivery her uterus was removed.
3. It was alleged that the opposite party No. 1 had never obtained the consent of complainant and had obtained the signature of her husband on some blank papers on the pretext that some record for delivery was to be maintained. It was further stated by the complainant in her complaint that her in-laws family had started rebuking and maltreating her by saying that she was of no use to them because she was not able to bear any male child for the propagation of their family and they had started thinking on the line of remarrying the husband of the complainant. According to the complainant the delivery was normal but due to careless and negligent act of the opposite party No. 1 she had to remain admitted in the hospital of the opposite party No. 1 for quite long time and thus suffered irreparable loss besides mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1, the complainant sought compensation of Rs. 4 lacs; Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and expenses incurred by her in the hospital and Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate written statements.
5. In her written statement it was stated by the opposite party No. 1 in the preliminary objections that the complainant had filed the complaint with a motive to indulge the opposite party No. 1 in speculative litigation and for exploitation by an unscrupulous person with a weapon to be used against medical practitioner to tarnish the image of the opposite party No. 1. On merits it was further stated that the complainant along with her husband and a lady had come to the hospital of the opposite party No. 1 on 19.2.2002 at about 6.00 p.m. and at that time the complainant was having labour pains from previous night. Upon examination by the opposite party No. 1, it was found that as per abdomen and cervix partially had effected, 2 fingers dilated, membrane and station-I. Ultrasound scan was advised to know the condition and position of the foetus and after receiving the report of ultra sound scan, the complainant was prescribed treatment. The complainant was put on pitocin drip for augmentation of labour with antibiotics. In the evening at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant had full dilation with good uterine contraction and station O, membrane absent with clear liquor and FH regular and there was no progress even
