Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The decision to withdraw from absolute rest was made under changed circumstances. Finding no USG clinic open in vicinity, the OP No.1 then contacted OP No.3 who had done previous two USG at his residence and he agreed to open his clinic and performed the USG on emergency basis. The USG was done at 2.30 p.m. on 04/06/01.

The OP No.1 retired in the year 1993 as Professor and Head of the Department of Obstratics and Gynecology, Calcutta Medical College. The patient was admitted in the said Nursing Home at her own choice. Regarding Annexure-D it has been stated that this is a hand written report made by OP No.3 with interpolated date. From that report it is evident that there were only multiple fibroids, foetal age 36 weeks, no foetal movement noticed nor any cardiac activity noticed, provisional sign IUD. This report was never shown to OP No.1 at any point of time and the same had been collected by the patient party on the next date, that is, 05/06/01 under threat of dismantling the clinic. The OP No.1 could get the report of USG on 04/06/01 over phone and took steps accordingly.

All the measures were taken to prevent any eclamptic convulsion. First requisition of blood was made under the signature of pediatrician. All possible measures were taken in consultation with anaesthesist, pediatrician and RMO and they waited until the BP came down to 150/90.

The patient was put in anaesthesia and caessarian section. Baby was delivered at 5.05 p.m. and the pediatrician found the baby stillborn, with multiple foetal malformations which was shown to the husband, the petitioner no.2. There was no method of delivery of foetus other than caessarian section for fear of rupture of uterus. No Nursing Home of middle class status had the stock of stored blood ready at hands. The blood is obtained by requisition from different blood banks of the city. The requisition of blood was made under the signature of the pediatrician simultaneously when the OP No.1 was busy in attending the patient after her arrival back to Nursing Home for control of her hypertension. Altogether the patient got eight units of blood transfusion before her death which was made known to the petitioner no.2. The OP No.2 himself explained the condition of the patient to the petitioner no.2, the husband of the patient and also stated that some small fibroids have to be removed after the delivery of the baby only for the position of the wound of the uterus after caessarian section. Myomectomy of fibroids coming on wound line during caessarian section is text accepted procedure and it was noted on the operation note sheet. The total hysterectomy versus sub total hysterectomy is to be decided on the nature of the pathology existent and since the patient had recurrent multiple fibroids including some cervical fibroids, the OP No.1 was compelled to do total hysterectomy. The petitioner no.2 was aware of the fact and the OP No.1 himself informed and explained to the petitioner no.2 the actual physical condition of the patient and on his consent the OP No.1 started operation of hysterectomy after caessarian section. The death of the patient occurred due to cardiac arrest which might have been due to amniotic fluid embolism.

The OP No.3 has filed W.V. contending, inter alia, that the USG was done by OP No.3 on 04/06/01 and the report showed that the baby had died in the womb and it was a case of Intra Uterine Foetal Death.

After doing the USG the OP No.3 directed the complainant to rush to the Nursing Home and to OP No.1. On the said date USG report was handed over to the complainant and the USG report prepared by the OP No.3 clearly mentioned Huge multiple fibroids, foetal age 36 weeks, no foetal movements noticed nor any condiac activity noticed, IUD. The OP No.3 telephoned the doctor (treating the patient) twice to inform that the foetus was dead and he gave hand written report on the same day and typed conventional report on that date giving all details of the study, observation and conclusion arrived at by the OP No.3. There was no question of hiding any material information from the complainant or the treating doctor. Diagnosis by USG is always done from moving images on the monitor and then the doctors select the images and freeze them on the screen and take photograph on the films as samples. In the screening cases films are not taken but frozen images data are noted in a paper which is served as report. Printing of image is secondary which has no value in case of dead foetus. Diagnosis by USG is never done from static films, it is done from the moving screen, whereas in x-ray diagnosis is always done from static films. The OP No.3 was not supposed to explain the contents of the report to the party or to the patient. The OP No.3 did not suppress any fact and, as such, there was no collusion between the OPs.