Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Anuja Chaudhary —Complainant
versus
Shivam Hospital & Research Institute
and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.85 of 2003
Decided on 18.3.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Complainant No.2 (In person)
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Anup Banerjee, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Removal of uterus held no medical negligence, if found essential to save life of mother-patient.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 1986 – Section 21 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58 – Medical negligence – Sub-total hysterectomy – Legality of – Complainant No. 1 was availing pre-natal care during her first pregnancy from one experience gynaecologist, i.e. O.P. No. 3 – Removal of uterus – Deficiency in service claimed – As per materials on record, no negligence found in removal of uterus as it was essential to save the life of patient – As patient’s ovaries had been left intact, she has not lost totally her chance to have another child through available advance medical techniques – Both the baby and the patient-mother survived and leading normal life – Patient was transferred about 10 units of blood, but intractable obstetrical haemorrhage of patient was unresponsive to all measures – Thus, to save life of patient from obstetric shocks, O.P. No. 3 performed an emergency sub-total hysterectomy – No medical negligence found to be attributed to opposite parties. (Paras 11 to 16)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—Emergency obstetric hysterectomy (EOH) remains an essential weapon in any Obstetrician’s armoury and it is most vital to decide the perfect time to use this weapon. EOH is generally performed as a lifesaving procedure in cases of postpartum haemorrhage, rupture uterus, morbid adhesions of placenta and uterine sepsis. On one hand, it is used as a last resort to save the lives of mothers and on the other hand women’s reproductive capability is sacrificed. Often it is a difficult decision and requires good clinical judgment. The maternal outcome greatly depends upon the timely decision, the surgical skill and the speed of performing the surgery.
Complaint:
1. Mrs Anuja Chaudhary, the complainant No.1 (for short ‘the patient’) was availing prenatal care during her first pregnancy from one experienced gynaecologist in Delhi. However, for the proposed delivery reposing faith and trust in Dr. Shanti Roy (O.P. No. 2) the leading practicing Gynaecologist in Patna, the patient’s in-laws took an appointment with O. P. No. 2 who agreed to perform delivery on her own in Shivam Hospital & Research Institute ( for short ‘the hospital- O.P. No 1).
2. On 4.5.2002 the patient with her husband Mr Sanjay Kumar (the complainant no.2) reached Patna and visited O.P. No. 2. The ultrasound (USG) was performed and, the condition of baby and mother was normal as per USG report. The expected date of delivery (EDD) was 13.06.2002. The O.P. No. 2 informed that the delivery shall be normal and patient was called after 20 days. Accordingly, on 25.05.2002, the patient visited the O.P. No. 2 who examined her and reassured the complainants that she shall perform the delivery on her own and do not worry everything is normal. The O.P. No. 2 called the patient again on 03.06.2002.
3. On 03.06.2002, though the patient was normal without any gynec or obstetric related problems, the O.P. No. 2 asked the patient to get admitted at 9 am. It was alleged that on the same day, a nurse gave enema to the patient to clear bowel. The O.P. No. 3 Dr. Sarikar Roy started the treatment of the patient without consent of her husband or other family members. They paid Rs. 100/- for admission fee and Rs. 20/-for administration of enema, but payment receipt was not given. On 04.06.2002 at about 2.00 P.M., the mother-in-law of the patient on hearing patient’s screaming and cries went to the labour room and found the patient was crying with severe pain in stomach because of some medicine applied by O.P. No. 3. The mother-in-law of the patient found a packet of “Cerviprime Gel” lying on the ground, which was to be used to induce artificial labour pains. The patient alleged that as O.P. No. 3 applied that medicine and soon after the child’s movements in womb were stopped. The patient’s father in law was extremely surprised to know that O.P. No. 2 induced labour needlessly even when everything was normal. The patient’s in-laws contacted O.P. No. 2 doctor at her residence, but to no avail. The normal delivery was conducted by O.P.No.3 at around 5.15 pm and she left the labour room after directing the nurse to stitch the patient’s wound. O.P. No. 2 at about 6.00 pm came to hospital and went inside her chamber adjacent to the operation theatre without seeing the patient.
4. It was alleged that after the delivery the new born was in serious condition and was kept on oxygen as its body was turning blue. The patient was crying with pain, which her mother-in-law saw the patient was bleeding profusely and her body was getting cold. The mother-in-law came running out and apprised the condition patient to her husband. The father in law of patient requested O.P.No.2 to see the patient, but she sent O.P.No.3 who could not stop the bleeding nearly for one hour. O.P.No.3 asked the attendants to arrange 5 bottles of blood immediately. Thereafter, O.P.No.2 took the patient in the OT without informing patient’s relatives and after 2 hours brought the patient outside the OT
