Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Learned AR submitted that as per V.Kishan Rao case, expert opinion is not needed to prove negligence of the opposite parties of this case. But as Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order to file expert opinion, the complainant filed expert opinion of Dr. Veena Singh who is qualified Obstetrician and Gynaecologist from Jamshedpur, who is also relative of the complainant. As the opposite parties were allowed to cross examine the expert by way of sending interrogatory, the interrogatory was answered by the expert Dr. Veena Singh. Dr Veena Singh clearly stated that, "this case could have been handled in much better way as per the guidelines and standard teaching given in D.C. Dutta's textbook of Obstetrics and the tragedy of the child being born with brachial plexus damage and lifelong paralysis could have been certainly avoided in the facts and circumstance of the case".

10. Learned advocate for the opposite parties further submitted that at the time of admission itself on 12th of March 1999 the consent was obtained and the husband did sign. So it was not the consent for lower segment caesarean section. The same was recorded in the indoor case record that husband was not willing for the caesarean section on 5th April 1999.

RBT/CC/18/205 IN CC/01/152

11. Learnedadvocate for the opposite partiesfurther submitted that there was shoulder dystocia because of which left arm could not be delivered and had to proceed with the maneuver necessary for the delivery of shoulder. As per the standard textbook Williams of Obstetrics, shoulder dystocia cannot be predicted. Also the advocate invited our attention to the expert opinion submitted by the complainant of Dr. Veena Singh, and submitted that the expert nowhere said that the doctor was negligent. Based on the interrogatory answers by the expert the learned advocate submitted that the expert Dr. Veena Singh also did not have experience of proceeding ahead with Caesarean section when the head of baby came out of vagina.

14. In view of the legal position discussed above, we are of the view that the National Commission was justified in holding that decision to perform surgery may not by itself be held to be medical negligence."

14. We have considered all the documents on record, the order of this state Commission, the expert opinion submitted by complainant and interrogatory given by opposite parties to the expert and the answers given by the expert, also we heard both the parties again. Considering the submissions on record and evidences, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service by the opposite parties' no. 1 and 2 as they failed to perform caesarean section in time resulted in the permanent disability to the baby girl in the form of left side brachial plexus injury. Hence both the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation. We grant the compensation as follows-