Medical professionals are not held liable for negligence if they conform to accepted medical standards and act with due diligence, even in emergency situations.

PER DR. 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