Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.      The opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint written version denying the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service.  They contended that 1st opposite party, Dr.N.Bhama treated 2nd complainant with utmost care and caution by following the standard procedures and formalities; and that 2nd complainant was diagnosed as a case of Pregnancy Induced Hyper tension (PIH) and thereby she was closely observed by recording the blood pressure, foetal heart.  It was contended that 1st complainant baby was diagnosed as chronic IUGR baby (Intra Uterine Growth Retardation) and that the IUGR was caused due to pregnancy induced hyper tension.  It is also contended that due to IUGR there occurred uterine cavity contained meconium and thereby there occurred aspiration of meconium stained amniotic fluid which resulted in respiratory distress; that 1st complainant baby was revived by endo tracheal aspiration; that 1st complainant baby was seen by Pediatrician and all the treatments suggested by the Pediatrician were followed on; that subsequently 1st complainant baby was referred to Ernakulam Medical centre for better treatment and management.  They also denied the case of the complainants that there occurred delay in performing the Caesarean Section and that it resulted in passing of meconium into amniotic fluid.  It is contended that the complainants 3 and 4 and the relatives of the 2nd complainant were not co-operating with the opposite parties for performing Caesarean Section and that they resisted in performing Caesarean Section by arguing that 2nd complainant has got one more week left behind for her delivery.  It is contended that due to the timely action of the opposite parties, the life of complainants 1 and 2 could be saved and that the complainants belong to a particular religious group whose belief did not permit blood transfusion and that fact is stated in the discharge summary issued from Ernakulam Medical Centre.  Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP.770/01.

6.      For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will be referred to according to their rank and status before the Forum in OP.770/01.

7.  Points 1 and 2:-

There is no dispute that 2nd complainant, Aibymol.D.A was admitted at 2nd opposite party, M/s Chandrassery Hospital, Kochi on 17.5.2001 and that 2nd complainant was under the treatment of 1st opposite party doctor N.Bhama attached to 2nd opposite party hospital.  It was the first delivery of 2nd complainant and she was gave birth to 1st complainant under Caesarean operation.  Admittedly, the aforesaid Caesarian (LSCS) was performed by 1st opposite party Dr.N.Bhama on 19.5.2001.  The aforesaid LSCS was done under spinal anesthesia and that the said operation commenced at 6.20.pm and 1st complainant was delivered at 6.35.pm.  It is also an admitted fact that the foetus had passed meconium into the amniotic fluid and there occurred aspiration of the meconium stained amniotic fluid causing respiratory distress to 1st complainant baby.  It is not disputed that 1st complainant baby was aspirated by doing tracheal aspiration and suction and revived the baby from respiratory distress and that the baby was subsequently referred to Ernakulam Medical Centre for better treatment and management.

8.      The definite case of the complainants is that there occurred medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party in treating 2nd complainant at 2nd opposite party hospital and also in performing LSCS on 2nd complainant on 19.5.2001.  It is also the definite case of the complainants that there was delay in performing LSCS on 2nd complainant and which resulted in passing of meconium into amniotic fluid causing aspiration of meconium stained amniotic fluid resulting in respiratory distress to the baby.

18.    Ext.X2 case sheet would show that 1st complainant baby was referred to Ernakulam Medical Centre for better treatment and management.  The medical bills produced from the side of the complainants would also show that they had incurred expenses for treating 1st complainant at Ernakulam Medical Centre.  The baby was treated as an inpatient in Ernakulam Medical Centre from 20.5.2001 up to 11.6.2001.  The discharge summary issued from Ernakulam Medical Centre is also incorporated to X2 case sheet.  It would show that the baby was in a critical stage and the baby was given ventilator support from 20.5.2001 up to 28.5.2001.  It would also show that the baby had respiratory distress and history of meconium stained amniotic fluid.  DW1 has also admitted the fact that foetal distress may cause due to passing of meconium into the amniotic fluid and aspiration of meconium stained amniotic fluid by the baby causing respiratory distress. It can be seen that the respiratory distress was due to the delay in performing LSCS on 2nd complainant.  No other reason or ground is available in the record. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the delay in performing the LSCS resulted in causing all the subsequent complications of foetal distress, passing of meconium into amniotic fluid, aspiration of meconium stained amniotic fluid causing respiratory distress to the baby.  Thus, the Forum below is perfectly justified in finding the opposite parties medically negligent in treating 2nd complainant at 2nd opposite party hospital.