Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 in both appeals had approached appellant No.1 for treatment of her pregnancy. The appellant being a doctor gave her medicines and subjected her to a Sonography test on 01/05/2007. It is alleged by the respondent No.1 that appellant was not competent to conduct the sonography. After the sonography the appellant no. 1 gave a report that there is healthy one foetus of 19 weeks in the womb. It was alleged by the respondent that the appellant did not have the expertise of conducting sonography test and no expert doctors were available. The sonography was done on the illegally purchased machine of the appellant. However the appellant also did her pathology test and she was regularly taking the medicine given by the appellant. On 19/8/2007, the respondent No.1 suddenly started severe pains and was admitted to a nearby cottage hospital by her husband. She delivered at the hospital in the evening at 6.50 hours. She delivered a child weighing 2 kgs. and immediately thereafter, gave birth to an another child weighing 1300 grams. But both the foetus were still born. It is the complaint of the Respondent No.1 that the appellant No.1 did not inform her about the presence of two foetus inside her womb after sonography. She also did not do repeat sonographies as minimum 3 sonographies are necessary during pregnancy. Therefore, she could not take proper care of her foetus hence both of them died during delivery. She, therefore, alleged medical negligence to appellant No.1 and requested compensation of Rs.4 lac + Rs.1 lac + Rs.2 lac + Rs.2 lac total Rs.9,04,000/- with interest @18% upon it. Respondent issued notice to the appellant No.1 and after not getting reply, filed complaint as above, before the Forum.

5. The appellant No.1 appeared before Forum and submitted that the respondent/complainant had given consent to the sonography. Appellant no. 1 denied that she was not expert in conducting the sonography test but stated that she took training of sonography in hospital. The appellant No. 1 submitted that there was no difference between the care to be taken for a pregnancy of one foetus or a pregnancy of twins. Appellant No. 1 submitted that when the respondent No.1 had undergone pathology test on 11/7/2007, she had suspected toxemia of pregnancy in her for which she had prescribed proper antibiotics to her. The appellant No. 1 submitted that the respondent No. 1 may not have properly taken the medicines. She also did not come to her for treatment. While giving medicines, the appellant No. 1 had given her directions of taking medicines and to come regularly for the consultations.

12. The appellant No. 1 has submitted that she underwent a training in sonography in Wadia Hospital and was a DGO Postgraduate diploma holder after MBBS in Gynecology.The sonography is a non invasive test performed by a computerized instrument. The test is a suggestive measure in the medical treatment. The sonography was done in the early stages of the pregnancy. Therefore, only the mistake in stating one foetus in place of two foetus would certainly not be the total negligence or deficiency of service on the part of appellant doctor, that too after only the first test of sonography.

20 We also do not find any overt or direct relation between the opinion of the sonography test and the premature delivery of the respondent no. 1 and the delivery of two dead foetus. It is seen from the record that the respondent no. 1 had undergone the sonography test on 1/5/2007. She was pathologically examined on 25/06/2007 and showed her blood reports on 11/7/2007 to the appellant no. 1. The respondent no. 1 thereafter on 19/08/2007 got admitted to collage Hospital with pain and in emergency where she delivered the two still born babies. It shows that the respondent no. 1 delivered after 54 days after the sonography in the conditions which the respondent no. 1 has not clearly explained in the complaint. The hospital where she was admitted was different than the hospital of appellant No. 1. In these circumstances of delivery in the unexplained circumstances, we do not find any co-relation between the opinion and death of the foetus. We also find no reason to attribute the negligence to the appellant no. 1 when the delivery happened in unexplained circumstances and in premature period.