Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On 18.5.2001, since the patient had severe abdominal pain, believing it must be labour pain, went to the 3rd opposite party hospital and on examination, the 1st opposite party informed that the fetus had died in the womb, therefore suggesting urgent operation, informing, postponement will cause problems. Therefore, on the same date, at about 7.30 a.m., the patient was taken to the operation theatre, and when the operation was in progress, there was power failure, and the generator could not be started immediately also, resulting 15 minutes power off, thereby causing problems, resulting defective surgery. The opposite parties were running the hospital, even without basic amenities, that should be considered as deficiency in service.

8. The opposite parties 1 to 3, in their written version, filed separately, admitting the treatment given to the patient, opposed the claim, contending that the patient had abortion, even prior to the incident narrated in the complaint, thereby showing inherent problem, which was suppressed, that the patient has not followed the instructions given by the opposite party, in coming to the hospital, and taking necessary test, that on 11.5.2001, though the patient was directed to come for checking, she did not come, and came only on 18.5.2001, on which date problem had already commenced, even 3 days prior to that date, that because of the fetal death, informing the same to the patients husband, as well as the complainant, in order to remove the fetus, LSCS was performed, following all the standard protocol, administering anesthesia, by a qualified doctor, that though there was a power failure for few minutes, during the surgery, it had happened after the completion of the surgery, which has nothing to do with the problems occurred to the patient, that ascertaining the correct blood group, B+ was obtained and transfused, whenever necessary, that when the opposite parties have noted the urine output, was nil, they felt there was kidney failure, and informing the same, they have advised the complainant, and the husband of the patient to take her to the kidney care centre, with referral letter, and the discharge summary issued by the Kidney Care, Transplantation and Research Institute, also does not disclose any alleged negligence, or deficiency, said to have been committed by the opposite parties, and for the mistake committed by the patient, in not following the instruction, and not coming for routine checkup, that too knowing, when the fetus movement was stopped, resulting death, doctors cannot be blamed, as if they have committed deficiency, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying other averments in the complaint also specifically.

10. It is the specific case of the opposite parties, as seen from paragraph 21 of the written version, it is supported by proof affidavit also, that the 1st opposite party informed the patient on 8.5.2001, to come for review, after 3 days i.e. on 11.5.2001, not only to check BP, but also fetal heart (FH).

This advise so rendered, is recorded in the case sheet also, which is exhibited as Ex.B1. As far as this case sheet is concerned, commencing from 3.3.00, not under challenge. It is not even suggested remotely, that case sheet was prepared, after the problem had commenced, or it was not prepared then and there. Therefore, we have no option, except to accept the case record, as such and we should act upon the entries, available therein, in order to fid out the alleged negligent act, or what was the procedure followed by the patient also, in attending for review. Ex.B1 discloses that, when the patient had been for checkup on 8.5.2001, everything was normal, fetal movement was noticed, and proper medicines were also prescribed, and nothing was faulted. Under the heading advise AD, it is said to come for review after 3 days to check the BP and FH, and also advised to come immediately, if she suspects any change in the fetal, thereby informing the patient that routine checkup is required, atleast within 3 days, and not only that if any extraordinary problems noticed, that she should rush to the hospital. As per the records maintained by the opposite party hospital, and even as per the case of the complainant, since it is not the case, that the patient had been to the 1st opposite party hospital on 11.5.2001, the patient has not approached the opposite party for review, in order to ascertain the position of the fetus, its movement, heart rate etc. as advised  

12. True, a hospital, which is attending delivery, including performance of surgery, should be equipped with basic amenities, apprehending problem, including power failure. If the basic amenities are not available, and the doctors proceeded against the established norm, then certainly the Forum should affix seal of negligence, not otherwise.

One of the negligence attributed against the opposite parties, is though there was generator, it was not started immediately, and the operation was conducted for 15 minutes, after the power failure had occurred. There was a power failure on 18.5.2001, is fairly admitted by the opposite parties, and in fact, in the operation notes itself, it is noted by the surgeon, which reads after closing the uterus, there was power failure, which was rectified within few minutes, wound closed in layers, after pouring 100 ml metrogyl, peripheral cavity. The District Forum has also taken note of this fact, and concluded, that having emergency lamp, for few minutes, when there was a power failure, procedure adopted, which had not caused, any problem. The performance of LSCS is not by itself faulted or it is not the case of the complainant, that proper sutures were not put, or they have not properly removed the dead fetus or properly cleaned, something like that. Therefore, the admitted power failure, which was rectified within few minutes, cannot be taken as negligent act, affecting the patient, for which there is no proof.