Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

DR P D SHENOY, MEMBER     The issue involved in this case falls in a narrow matrix. An 25 years young lady who went to Samath Hospital for encirclement of the cervix by making sutures at the mouth of uterus to retain the pregnancy and prevent miscarriage died in the same hospital within 24 hours of the procedure. Is it due to medical negligence?

A detailed analysis of the case gives the answer.

The case of the complainant in Brief Mrs. Chandrakala, aged 25 years wife, of the first complainant and the daughter of the second complainant approached Dr. Sathy M. Pillai at Samath Hospital, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram District to protect her pregnancy and on her advice was admitted to the hospital on 24.5.96 on payment of Rs. 50,000/- as fees. Chandrakala was married on 14.4.1993 and had a miscarriage in December 1993. Dr.Sathy M. Pillai the first Opposite Party (here in after to be referred to as O.P. 1) advised sutures to be made at the mouth of the uterus to retain the pregnancy and prevent miscarriage. At 6 a.m. on 23.5.1996 she walked into the operation theatre. The complainants and relatives were waiting outside the operation theatre and about 6 p.m. second complainant Dr. Narayanan was allowed to see Chandrakala who complained that she could not bear the pain due to the sutures. At 10 p.m. the complainants were informed that Chandrakala vomited and wanted clothings and so 2 nighties were given by them. Second complainant was declined permission to see Chandrakala. At midnight when the complainants heard loud cries of Chandrakala, they agitated and wanted to see her. The second complainant was permitted to do so, who saw her lying nude pressed to the floor by the first opposite party and three staff of the hospital. Dr. Ajaykumar, relative of the first complainant who was brought to the hospital was not permitted to see her stating that she was mentally upset.

Considering the allegations in the complaint; Annexure-V report and Annexure VI minutes respectively of the Medical Board and the Apex Body, produced in Criminal M.C. 3682 of 2001, it cannot be stated that the allegation in the first information report, if taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute offences alleged in the complaint or do not disclose ingredients of cognizable offences as alleged.

Here, in the instant case no mandatory statutory provision is violated in the investigation and the defect in investigation if any does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the trial. But that will not prevent the Court from directing the police to file further report, or police filing further report. In the circumstances of this case it is felt that the Investigation Officer has to be directed to conduct further investigation and submit final report afresh under Section 173 (8) Criminal P.C. in C.C. 258 of 2001 on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrates Court 1 Attingal, registered on Annexure II final report. So then the proceedings in C.P. 1 of 2001 pending before the same court on the basis of Annexure-III complaint in Criminal M.C. 1138 of 2001) deserve to be stayed adopting the procedure prescribed in Section 210 Cr. P.C. In the circumstances the investigating officer who submitted Annexure II final report shall conduct further investigation in the case getting a fresh report from the Apex Body in view of the direction communicated to the first petitioner vide Annexure VII letter produced in Criminal M.C. 3682 of 2001. The Apex Body shall be convened with notice to the first petitioner and report in the matter shall be furnished to Investigation Officer within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Director of Health Services.

Dr. Madhavan Pillai claimed that he was on leave while trying to administer spinal anaesthesia. During the last date of hearing on 11.1.2007 we had directed the Ld. Counsel for the appellant to produce a copy of the order permitting appellant No. 2 Dr.Madhavan Pillai to do private practice. This has not yet been submitted us. Instead of filing the Government order permitting him to do private practice he has filed an affidavit stating as follows :

I, Dr. K.G. Madhavan Pillai, son of Sri Gopala Pillai Hindu, male, aged 56, residing at Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram Kerala, do solemnly affirm and state as follows :

(9) Dr. Soorajmani in his examination has stated that the patient was not in shock but in his cross examination he has admitted that he did not examine the patient so his testimony loses value as he cannot give any opinion without examining the patient.

(10) There was poor post-operative care. It is clear from the records that several complications arose and patient was writhing in pain and agony after operation. Even then they did not summon any expert doctor for several hours after the operation from 6 p.m. till half an hour before the death. Nor did they suggest that she may be taken to another hospital for better management. Anaesthetist and physician were called only at 11.30 a.m. and the patient died at 12 noon. Samath hospital is located in Attingal which is very close to Thiruvananthapuram. If they could have not managed the case they should have referred the case to Thiruvananthapuram, where there are many excellent hospitals, which they have not done.