JUDGMENT

This Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) by Punit Goyal (the Complainant) against Dr. Mridula Vohra, and Bhagirathi Neotia Woman and Child Care Center (the Opposite Parties) seeking compensation of Rs.20 Crore for the alleged death of his wife Jyoti Goyal due to the gross medical negligence during second delivery.

2. The Complainant’s wife Jyoti Goyal, during 2nd pregnancy, was under care of Dr. Mridula Vohra (OP-1). Her expected date of delivery (EDD) was in September, 2014. She was diagnosed as ‘Placenta Previa /Accreta’, but it was allegedly never disclosed by OP-1. On 14.07.2014, due to acute lower abdomen pain, the patient was admitted in the OP-2 Hospital. The patient was in stable condition, no bleeding and no scar tenderness. The OP-1 did not perform USG and the Duvadilan (R) Test prior to delivery on previous night. It was alleged that the OP-1 never disclosed about the high risk of PPH, blood transfusions and possible need for emergency Hysterectomy. The OP did not take ‘High Risk Consent’ for Hysterectomy.

3. The C-section was performed on 15.07.2014. After delivery the patient had profuse bleeding, which could not be stopped. The OP-1 tried to remove the adherent placenta in the small pieces (“Piecemeal”), the bleeding increased further leading to hemorrhagic shock. It was alleged that necessary arrangement of blood and/or its products was not made, but OP-1 hurriedly started Emergency Hysterectomy which further precipitated hemorrhagic shock leading to Cardiac arrest and death in the OT. The OPs obtained signature from Complainant for Hysterectomy by misrepresenting the facts.

4. The Complainant further submitted that the Deputy Director of Health Service (Admin) Department of Health, Govt. of West Bengal enquired the matter and affirmed that OP-1 failed to provide rational treatment in the case.

5. Being aggrieved by the gross medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties, this Consumer Complaint was filed.

6. In the defense, the Opposite Parties filed their respective replies and denied the allegations of medical negligence.

7. Dr. Mridula Vohra (OP-1) raised the preliminary objection on maintainability of Complaint that it was barred by limitation u/s 24 of the Act. It was filed with a delay of about 403 days. The OP-1 submitted that the deceased was a house wife, but the Complaint was filed with inflated and imaginary claim. She narrated the details of patient’s treatment as under:—

(a) Patient namely Jyoti Goyal admitted at Bed No ICU 1 under OP no. 1 – Dr. Mridula Vohra for pregnancy and the treatment provided was the best possible that could have been done. Patient had history of past CS with placenta previa in current pregnancy and so the patient and husband were counseled by Dr. Vohra - OP no. 1 that in cases of early detection of placenta previa (during 14 to 16 weeks of pregnancy), the placenta may migrate upwards as the pregnancy progresses but around in 5 to 10 % cases placenta remains previa, as has happened in the present case. Patient always presented BP of 80/60 - 90/60 mm of Hg throughout the tenure of pregnancy.

14th of July 2014

(b) 4:15 PM Patient came in with complaint of pain abdomen since morning and hence was taken to Labour Room. Initial Assessment was done in the Labour Room itself at 4:15PM where findings revealed no scar tenderness and no contractions. Injection Drotin stat was administered and bed rest was advised as per OP No. 1, Dr. Mridula Vohra.

(c) At 4:31 PM; patient was admitted at Bed No LR 1.

(d) 6 PM: RMO saw the patient again at 6 PM when patient condition was well. No scar tenderness, patient on normal diet and complete bed rest. Patient complained of intermittent pain abdomen.

(e) At 9PM patient was seen by Dr. Mridula Vohra - OP no. 1 when patient was well with no contractions. Toilet facilities were allowed and USG was advised coming morning.

15th of July 2015

(f) 7 AM: RMO see