Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. After the operation was performed, the plaintiff was kept as an indoor patient in the hospital. It is also proved from the evidence of Dr. Sheth that he could not successfully do catheter. On the third day of the operation on December 18, 1981, the catheter was also changed and it was noticed by Dr. Sheth on December 21, 1981, that the patient had developed complications. In medical terms, it is known as vesico vaginal fistula (VVF for short). Therefore, the patient and her relatives were explained and were informed about the complications which had started on December 21, 1981. On the 7th and 8th day after the operation, the stitches were removed 50 per cent. The operated wound was found fully healed. However, Dr. Sheth found that there was dripping of urine because of VVF. He found and thought that in view of the complication of VVF, catheter was required for a further period of 3 to 4 weeks so that there may not be sepsis. Medicine was also continued, Ordinarily, in such case, as deposed by Dr. Sheth, the patient is discharged on the next day of removal of stitches. But in the case of the plaintiff, extra care and caution was exercised and she was kept in the hospital for further treatment as an indoor patient with a view to treat the complication because of the VVF.

26. She was kept in the hospital as an indoor patient till December 28, 1981. Thereafter, Dr. Sheth found that further treatment in Baroda Hospital was necessary and, therefore, upon the desire of the relatives of the plaintiff, a reference note was given by him so as to see that proper, further, better treatment could be received by the plaintiff in the Baroda Hospital. It was also specifically mentioned by Dr. Sheth about the said complication of VVF. Bill was also given by him which was paid. It was deposed by Dr. Sheth that thereafter no further treatment was ever taken by the plaintiff from him.

27. It may also be stated that the husband of the plaintiff was serving in Baroda at the relevant time as a teacher and he came to the hospital of Dr. Sheth after the operation was performed who was informed by Dr. Sheth about the seriousness of the health, unfortunate happening of still born child and the course of treatment given by him. It is also testified by him that long thereafter, one relative of the plaintiff, one Gordhanbhai, had come to him who had quarrelled for nothing. Exhibit 97 is the prescription of Dr. Bhupendra C. Patel dated October 16, 1984. According to the evidence of Dr. Sheth, due to VVF, the lady is not rendered barren. In other words, the said complication would not be the cause for non-bearing of a child. It may be clarified that it is very clear from the evidence of Dr. Sheth that VVF would not cause any hindrance or any impediment for conception in future. One more interesting thing which has transpired from his testimony is that not only the plaintiff had one misdelivery prior to the operation performed by him on December 15, 1981, but thereafter also, she had a miscarriage as per the note prepared on the back of the prescription of Dr. B. C. Patel, exhibit 97. Dr. Sheth has categorically denied the pointed and specific suggestion that it was he who wag responsible for the injury sustained by the plaintiff.

31. We may make it clear that a medical practitioner or for that purpose any professional can be held liable for a negligent act and if the court once finds that a professional is found negligent, well, then also the duty of the court is to see that he is directed to pay compensation as far as possible to see that the victim of such negligent act is placed in the same financial position as if he or she would not have been injured.

32. But we have to assess and analyse the evidence so as to award compensation in terms of money which the victim has suffered. There are various heads which are required to be considered under which compensation can be awarded. A mere glance at the impugned judgment would radiate an imprint that the trial court has again adopted a very unusual and casual approach. There is no bifurcation or break up of the figures of compensation under different heads which ought to have been done. Since we find that the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation as defendant No. 1 is not found negligent, though the plaintiff has sustained serious injury, no doubt, it appears that for a long spell, on account of VVF, the plaintiff who is aged 32 had to undergo pain and agony. Howsoever great sympathy we have for the plaintiff, it would not take the place of proof so as to hold defendant No. 1, Dr. Sheth, responsible. In our opinion, he is found not only not negligent but he is found to have exercised due care, skill diligence and had put in all efforts so as to see that the life of the plaintiff is saved. A look at the medical case papers produced at exhibit 114 which were prepared at the relevant time would undoubtedly lead us to an inference that defendant No. 1, Dr. Sheth, had made all efforts so as to save the life of the plaintiff. Unfortunately, the child in the womb had also died. He had to exhibit and exercise care and caution at a time when he had seen the condition of the plaintiff in the early morning of December 15, 1981, who was unconscious, having low blood pressure with full exhaustion having undergone labour pain for a long spell of more than 12 hours before that again, unfortunately, having seen the right hand of the child in the womb of the mother coming out. All precaution, diligence and care which a professional of the medical fraternity should exercise in such a situation is rightly and properly taken in view of the testimony of Dr. Sheth coupled with documentary evidence at exhibit 114, and subsequent documents.