Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

for short, ‘the PGI’ and litigation expenses of ₹11,000/-. This complaint case was filed on 11.05.2006.

8. A lengthy written statement was filed by the opposite parties, viz., Deep Nursing Home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar. Therein, they pointed out that Manmeet Singh Mattewal had earlier reported the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, and an enquiry was conducted by a Medical Board, consisting of experts, to ascertain whether there was any medical negligence and the Board had negated the same. It was stated that Charanpreet Kaur had suffered atonic Post Partum Haemorrhage5 which proved to be catastrophic as she did not respond to the treatment administered in the nursing home. It was stated that PPH is a failure of the uterus to properly contract after the child is born resulting in bleeding within the uterus, which cannot be controlled. It was asserted that proper treatment was given as per protocol but despite the same, she did not respond and ultimately died. Details were given of the experience and expertise of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and the well-equipped status of the nursing home. It was stated that Dr. GS Kochhar, who ran the nursing home, was a renowned anaesthetist. Charanpreet Kaur was stated to have come to the nursing home on 10.11.2005 along with her mother and another person. Her date of delivery was approximated to be around 02.01.2006. As she wanted to for short, ‘PPH’ have her delivery at the nursing home with Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, she was advised to continue with the intake of Iron and Calcium. It was stated that Charanpreet Kaur did not show the reports of her earlier check-ups, despite being asked by Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, and neither did she show records of her previous delivery. It was further stated that Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar came to know from the hushed tones of Charanpreet Kaur that there was some problem in the delivery of the first child, but this was not divulged to her. She claimed that she later came to know that the first child was autistic, but this was also not disclosed to her. She asserted that, had this fact come to her knowledge earlier, she might have refused to undertake the delivery, as there were more chances of the second child having congenital abnormalities if the first child had them.

10. Details were furnished of the treatment given to Charanpreet Kaur post-delivery and it was stated that there were no placental tissue or membranes in her uterus. The cervix was also examined and no tear was found. However, as there was still bleeding, her relations were asked to secure two units of blood from the blood bank in Sector 37, Chandigarh. Dr. GS Kochhar telephonically informed the blood bank to keep the same ready without delay. Transfusion was commenced at about 04.15 AM. Owing to the complications which had arisen, two more doctors, viz., a senior Gynaecologist and a General Surgeon were contacted, and they reached the nursing home at 04.00 AM. All the doctors present conducted a thorough examination and opined that the patient was suffering from uterine inertia PPH and it was decided that she should be sent to the PGI. The staff of the septic labour room at the PGI were informed in advance to be ready to receive and treat her. She was shifted in an ambulance with running blood transfusion and an Ambu bag (oxygen). Two staff nurses from the nursing home accompanied her while Dr. GS Kochhar went there in his own car. He personally took the patient on a stretcher to the septic labour room. On his request, completion of the other formalities prior to admission were kept on hold. During the journey, the patient suffered a bout of bleeding and was in deep shock. After reaching the PGI, she was examined but no pulse and heart beat were palpable. Despite resuscitative measures, she did not survive. The patient developed uterine inertia PPH which is a disorder with poor prognosis and high mortality. Uterine Artery Embolization facility was available only in the PGI in the whole of North India. The blood group of Charanpreet Kaur was checked and the same was written on the prescription dated 10.11.2005 itself, which had been filed with the complaint. It was denied that the nursing home was ill- equipped to handle emergencies during deliveries. It was asserted that there was no delay in shifting the patient to the PGI.

11. No rejoinder was filed by the complainants to the above written statement.

12. The SCDRC, vide its judgment dated 31.01.2007, found fault with Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar for not getting Charanpreet Kaur’s blood group identified at the time of delivery and in arranging for transfusion by keeping blood supply ready. Reference was made to a textbook on Obstetrics and Gynaecology by the SCDRC and it was opined that, in a case of PPH, excessive bleeding after child birth is the single largest cause of maternal deaths worldwide. The SCDRC came to the conclusion that the nursing home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar wasted almost two hours in getting blood and cross-matching it and this led to deterioration of the patient’s condition. Examining the averments in the written statement, the SCDRC found fault with Dr. GS Kochhar for not accompanying the patient in the ambulance to the PGI. The SCDRC went to the extent of doubting his very presence there. The conclusion drawn by the SCDRC was that Charanpreet Kaur was already dead when she was taken to the PGI and this was done only to dump her dead body there. The affidavit filed by Dr. GS Kochhar was held to be a false and fabricated document and the SCDRC categorically recorded a finding that he did not go to the PGI. Reference was made to the Report dated 18.08.2006 of the Medical Board at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, which opined that ‘there did not appear any gross medical negligence in the management of the patient by the treating doctors’ but the same was discarded on the ground that it was a short report without reasons for recording such a finding. The SCDRC held that it was certainly a case of negligence on the part of the nursing home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and they had failed to exercise due care and caution in treating Charanpreet Kaur, even if it was presumed that there was no fault on their part insofar as the death of the child was concerned. The SCDRC, accordingly, directed payment of compensation as stated hereinabove.

18. The second Report dated 20.03.2006 was from a Board of doctors of Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The doctors in this Board were Professor Veena Parmar, HoD of Paediatrics; Professor Anju Huria, HoD of Obstetrics & Gynaecology; Professor K.K. Gombar, HoD of Anaesthesia; Professor A.K. Attri, HoD of Surgery; and Professor Harsh Mohan, Medical Superintendent and HoD of Pathology (Chairman). The conclusion of the Board was that the patient had atonic PPH which was managed conservatively but without success. It was noted that PPH is a known complication of delivery and accounted for 8% of maternal mortality in developed countries. The Board opined that different patients may cope differently with blood loss in PPH - a healthy woman would be far more tolerant to blood loss of 30- 50% when compared to a woman with either pre-existing anaemia or underlying cardiac complications or pre-eclampsia. The Board opined that it could not be said with certainty from the record whether this patient had anaemia or hypotension and shock before delivery but in the presence of either or both of these conditions, atonic PPH was more likely to be catastrophic. This final conclusion of the Board did not indict Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar but left the question open as it was not clear from the record whether the patient had any of these conditions before the delivery.