National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Naseem Mohammed Bashir Ansari vs Dhange Hospital And Ors. on 22 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2007)CPJ259(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission where he had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondent-opposite parties.
2. Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant's wife Farzana, on getting pregnant was under treatment of third respondent-Dr. Jaya. The due date for delivery was 17th October, 1995. She contacted the doctor on 18th October, 1995 and then again reported with labour pains in morning of 19th October, 1995 at 6.45 a.m. The baby was delivered by the attending nurse at 7.00 a.m. and the doctor reached there at 7.45 a.m. only. On examination the doctor found the child and mother to be normal but at about 8.15 a.m. was found to be exhausted because of excess bleeding. She was brought out but at that time she had difficulty in breathing and her eyes were closed. The deceased told the complainant that the condition was precarious. Necessary medicines were administered but the condition of the deceased Farzana was deteriorating. Blood was arranged but the blood came very late. It was the case of the complainant that by this time his wife Farzana had died. It was the case of the complainant that his wife died on account of negligence on the part of the respondents as also the nurse who was not a qualified nurse. Blood was called much after Farzana had died. The alleged negligence was that had the doctor been present at the time of delivery, the unfortunate end could have been avoided. Thus, alleging medical negligence, a complaint was filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties and after perusal of material on record dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal before us.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. One of the main allegations against the respondents is that the doctor was not present at the time of delivery. After perusal of material on record we find that the deceased Farzana came to the hospital on 18th October, 1995 and the doctor advised her to get admitted in the hospital, as she had passed on due delivery date i.e. 17.10.1995 she could deliver any time as the due date has passed but the deceased decided to go to home and again came next day morning i.e. on 19th October, 1995 at about 6.45 a.m. with severe labour pain. Sister on duty found the deceased at, advanced stage of delivery, as cervix was fully dilated and the head of the baby was near the perineum ready to come out. The baby was delivered at about 7.00 a.m. In these circumstances, it would be appreciated that since she did not stay in the hospital despite medical advice and then she came all of a sudden while advanced labour pains, and since the concerned doctor is not supposed to be present all the lime, the doctor obviously would take some time to come which in this case happened within one hour. As per medical record, upon arrival the doctor examined the baby and the mother at about 7.45 a.m. and found them to be normal. The complications started only from 8.15 a.m. Necessary medicines were prescribed. Intravenous drip was commenced and Saline and Dexona were administered. On vaginal examination of deceased Farzana it was found to be a case of D.I.C. and there was huge bleeding. The blood group was found to be 'O' positive. Blood was called for. Other concerned doctors were also called. 100% oxygen was administered and it was seen that the deceased had started bleeding from gums and throat as well. Her throat was cleared with 'suction machine' and the patient was intubated for helping her take-in 100% oxygen. Despite this the deceased Farzana died at about 10.40 a.m. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show us anything by which it could be determined that 'due care' was not taken by the respondents in taking care of the deceased.
4. It was also alleged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the D.I.C. occurred, as a result of bacteria caused by unhealthy handling of the case by an untrained nurse. Despite our specific quarry, the appellant was unable to show us that any attack of bacteria could cause D.I.C. resulting in death of a person within three hours?
5. In this case post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and death was found to be due to cardio-respiratory failure, due to haemorrhage and shock due to post-partem haemorrhage due to Disseminated Intravascular Coagulopathy (D.I.C). No medical expert's opinion or any medical literature has been shown by the appellant-complainant to prove that this haemorrhage was caused by any act of medical negligence on the part of the respondents, especially Dr. Jaya. Law on the subject is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Jacob Mathetv v. State of Punjab 122 (2005) DLT 83 (SC) : III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) : III (2005) CCR 9 (SC) : (2005) 6 SCC. In this case it was held that the onus of proof of medical negligence lies with the complainant and also laid down the principle of Bolam's test which required the duty of care which inter alia meant whether the doctor had the knowledge to deal with a case and prescribing the treatment as also the administration of such treatment. It has not been shown to us that Dr. Jaya was not qualified to handle the case and no medical expert opinion has been led by the appellant to show whether the treatment given by her was improper and for that anything was wrong in the administration of the treatment?
6. In the absence of above, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and also no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the State Commission.
7. In the aforementioned circumstances, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed.