BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 277 of 2012 against CC 106/2005, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
1) Jella Ramesh, S/o. Sathaiah
2) Baby Jella Satvika
D/o. Jella Ramesh
Minor, Rep. by her father
Jella Ramesh
Both now R/o. 11-10-159
Road No. 5, SBI Colony
Kothapet, Saroor Nagar
Hyderabad-500 035. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
1) Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences
Nalgonda Dist-508 254
Rep. by its Medical Superintendent
2) Dr. C. R. Das,
Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences
Narketpally, Nalgonda Dist-508 254
3) Kamineni Hospitals
L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist.
Hyderabad-500 068
Rep. by its Managing Director. *** Respondents/
Ops.
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. V. Gourishankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. Srinivasa Rao (R1)
R2- Held sufficient.
M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy (R3)
CORAM:
SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member)
***
1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 106/2015 on the file of Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy, the complainant preferred this appeal.
2) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant’s wife Smt. J. Sailaja was admitted to Op1 hospital at about 10.15 a.m. on 28.7.2004 for delivery. At about 2.35 p.m., Op2 performed
caesarean operation and a female child was born. The complainant submits that in the evening the attendants of the patient noticed distension of abdomen and uneasiness. On 29.7.2004 there was no urine output and the same complications continued even on the next day. On 31.7.2004 there was heavy swelling of the abdomen and there was no urine output even on that day also. At their request the patient was discharged at about 1.30 p.m. on 31.7.2004 and was taken to Op3 hospital who observed that the patient was in Septicaemia, shock, multi organ dysfunction, acute renal failure, pancreatitis, acute respiratory distress, disseminated intra-vascular coagulation and jaundice. In Op3 hospital the patient was kept in ICU and 34 units of blood was transfused and two units of platelets were also given. The complainant incurred an amount of Rs. 3,43,535/- towards the treatment. Despite that the patient expired on 15.8.2004. The complainant alleges that Ops 1 & 2 failed to conduct the caesarean operation properly and failed to undertake the relevant tests and that there was delay in shifting the patient to Op3 hospital which resulted in her death.
3) The complainant submits that Ops 1 & 2 did not furnish copies of investigation reports and the discharge summary was also not given and on 27.10.2004 only a medical certificate was given. On 1.9.2004 the complainant submitted a representation to Op1 to furnish a copy of the case sheet, treatment particulars and other reports. On 27.10.2004 Op1 sent a duplicate discharge card and the complainant vide his registered letter dt. 9.8.2005 sought for case sheet. It is the complainant’s case that the patient was 23 years old and was studying M.Sc. final year, and the complainant No. 2 lost the love and affection of her mother and that it is only because of negligence of the opposite parties that Smt. J. Shailaja the patient died. Hence this complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs and costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
4) Ops 1 & 2 filed counter stating that the patient Smt. J. Sailaja was admitted in Op1 hospital at about 10.15 a.m. on 28.7.2004 for delivery with complaints of mild pain in the abdomen and watery vaginal discharge since 5.00 a.m. Immediately Op2 doctor attended to the patient. They admitted that at about 2.35 p.m. Op2 performed caesarean operation after explaining to the patient and the attendants about the poor prognosis. As a result of aspiration and Sepsis ‘high risk informed consent’ was obtained from the attendants before performing the procedure. They submit that 1100 ml urine output was recorded on that day and they denied that there was no urine output on 29.7.2004. In fact the expected date of delivery is 2.8.2004 and the patient had come with mild uterine contractions and the temperature was 99.8F., pedal oedema and anaemia was persisting at Hb. 7.5 gm, T.C. 12,000/cu.mm and unhealthy vaginal discharge was present since 5.00 a.m. Immediately the patient was shifted to labour room. The patient and the foetus were monitored and high vaginal swab and blood was sent for culture and sensitivity to find out the kind of infection. At around 12.30 p.m. foetal distress was detected and the relatives of the patient were informed about the necessity to perform caesarean operation. The attendants of the patient were explained about the high risk situation and the patient was given LSCS as ASA-III E grade under Spinal Anaesthesia, and a full term female baby was delivered at 2.25 p.m. The surgery, anaesthesia and recovery were uneventful. The patient was shifted to post-operative ward and blood transfusion was given in view of severe anaemia. On 29.7.2004 the patient was examined and all the vitals were normal and there was sufficient urine output of 1000 ml. When they observed foul smell, lochia and abdominal distension and paralytic-ileus (Temporary Paralytic Condition of muscles) necessary treatment was started. The TLC counts were increased to 16,400 c/mm and Na-163 mmol/L, K-4.7 mmol/L.
5) They submit that on 30.7.2004 the doctors examined the patient and observed the distension of abdomen was continuing. Pulse, B.P., and urine output were normal. On third post-operative day i.e., on 31.7.2004 the USG abdomen revealed mildly distended intestinal loops, no free fluid, hepatic echo texture normal and calculi seen in the gall bladder. The temperature came down to 100 Fh. The blood culture and high vaginal swab reports revealed the growth of micro organism-infection ‘Klebsiella Pneumonic’ which indicates severe infection in the body. Immediately they started necessary antibiotics. They also observed that there was no urine output since midnight.
6) The Ops 1 & 2 further submit that various investigation reports such as culture report, USG report etc. were assessed and observed that the patient progressed to Septic Shock with multi organ dysfunction syndrome as a result of Sepsis at the time of admission. They submit that necessary measures to counter the critical progression of sepsis were implemented . However, at the insistence of the patient’s attendants the patient was discharged at 1.30 p.m. and referred to a speciality centre after stabilising the patient. They took all care and caution while treating the patient.
7) They submit that the rupture of membranes and watery discharge for past six hours gave scope to severe infection which led to onset of Septicaemia. Because of negligence of patient and her attendants that led to septicaemia and multi-organ failure. The Ops 1 & 2 further submit that the patient was a severe anaemic due to malnutrition and six hourly watery discharge which are the root cause of all further complications.
8) Op1 is an associated hospital of Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences and Op2 is a well qualified and well trained gynaecologist and obstetrician with immense experience of 38 years. They submit that they have given the best possible care and treatment and even they have referred the patient to a specialized medical centre and no negligence can be attributed to them.
9) Op3 filed counter stating that it is a super speciality hospital and has reiterated the statements of Ops 1 & 2 submitted in their counter. Op3 further submitted in his counter that the patient was managed with continuous oxygen through polymask, antibiotics and fluids. The patient was seen by General Surgeon, Anaesthetist, Nephrologist and Gastroenterologist and was kept in Critical Care Unit. The investigations revealed anaemia, raised blood counts, thrombocytopenia, raised renal parameters, deranged coagulation profile and raised LFT, CRRT was instituted and packed cell FFP, PRP transfused. He submits that antibiotic injections Vancomycin, Amikacin and Parenteral nutrition were started. The patient’s attendants were explained about the condition and poor prognosis of the patient from time to time. On 15.8.2004 at about 7.00 a.m. she developed Brady-cardia, B.P. not recordable. ABG showed severe metabolic acidosis, ECG wide QRS complexes. CPCR was started immediately. Injection Atropine, Injection Adrenaline, Injection NaHco3 were given. She did not respond to resuscitate measures and declared dead at about 8.00 a.m. on 15.8.2004. The complainant is an employee of BSNL and all the medical expenses were paid by BSNL and Op3 submits that there is no negligence on their behalf.
10) The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs. A1 to A9 and Exs. B1 to B4 and the pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint holding that there is no negligence on behalf of opposite parties.
11) Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal.
12) The brief point that arises for consideration is whether there is any medical negligence on behalf of opposite parties in treating the patient and whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
13) The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that when the patient was in labour pain on 28.7.2004 she was admitted to Op1 hospital and that Op2 performed caesarean operation and on the next day there was no urine output and there was distension of abdomen which was brought to the notice of Op2 and the same condition continued on 30.7.2004. There was heavy swelling of the abdomen and on 31.7.2004 the patient was admitted to Op3 hospital at about 3.40 p.m. and the attendants were informed that the patient was in a state of Septicaemia, shock, multi organ dysfunction, acute renal failure, pancreatitis, acute respiratory distress, disseminated intravascular coagulation apart from jaundice. They were informed that the patient requires Intensive Care treatment, mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy, blood components, inotropic support, parental nutrition and other supportive therapy. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the patient was kept in ICU and 34 units of blood was transfused to the patient and two units of platelets were also given. The complainant contends that Op2 did not perform the caesarean operation properly and because of this all these complications had developed. Op1 on his request sent only duplicate discharge card and despite notice they did not give the case sheet. The learned counsel further contended that Op2 Dr. C.R. Das in his cross-examination admitted that the O.P card dt. 22.7.2004 reveals that the general condition of the patient was fair and there was no loss of appetite and no anaemia and that Ex. B1 case sheet dt. 28.7.2004 reveals that ARM (Artificial Rupture of Membrane) was present.
14) It is the contention of the Opposite Parties that the patient was not brought to the hospital on time and that the watery discharge has begun at about 5.00 a.m., and she was brought to the hospital at about 10.15 a.m. by which time there was every chance of on-set of infection and therefore the prognosis was poor and a high risk informed consent was taken from the patient and their attendants.
Ex. B1 case sheet dt. 28.7.2004 shows that the patient was presented at about 10.15 a.m. with complaints of ‘pain abdomen, leaking membrane.
History of present illness: Since morning there is watery discharge and slight pain in abdomen 5’0 clock in the morning.
Complications were written as : ‘Endotoxic shock, renal failure’
It is clear that at the time of admission itself the patient had a leaking membrane. This clearly establishes that the patient had high watery discharge and leaking membrane from 5.00 a.m. onwards and she was admitted to Op1 hospital at about 10.15 a.m., with an inordinate delay. Therefore the contention of the complainant that she was not a high risk patient is unsustainable.
15) The second contention of the appellant/complainant is that no proper investigations and tests were undertaken by the Ops prior to conducting the caesarean operation and that the operation was not conducted properly. As seen from the case sheet all preliminary investigations with respect to blood, B.P., urine, were conducted and advised high vaginal swab for culture and sensitivity and blood for culture and sensitivity and also monitored the temperature. High risk consent was obtained from the patient along with attendants in which it is clearly stated that “the risk of aspiration and sudden death of mother and risk of foetus death have been explained to me and I accepted them.” The blood reports, bio-chemistry reports, pathology reports, and operation record along with nurses notes have been filed by the opposite parties. The anaesthetist notes has also been filed.
16) The contention of the appellant/complainant that the operation was not done properly and therefore the complications had set-in is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The appellant/complainant has not established as to what procedure of caesarean as per standard normal medical parlance was not adopted and also not stated as to what the doctors ought to have done which was not done in the instant case.
We refer to and rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab and Another 2005(6) SCC1,where the Apex Court explained as to under what circumstances professional can be liable for negligence. It is necessary for this purpose that one of the two findings, as set out therein, should be established.
“18. In the law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are
included in the category of persons professing some special skill or skilled persons generally.
Any task which is required to be performed with a special skill would generally be admitted or
undertaken to be performed only if the person possesses the requisite skill for performing that
task. Any reasonable man entering into a profession which requires a particular level of learning
to be called a professional of that branch, impliedly assures the person dealing with him that the
skill which he professes to possess shall be exercised with reasonable degree of care and caution. He does not assure his client of the result. A lawyer does not tell his client that the client shall win the case in all circumstances. A physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is all what the person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings:
either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, -he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practises. In Michael Hyde and Associates v. J.D. Williams & Co. Ltd. Sedley, L.J. said that where a profession embraces a range of views as to what is an acceptable standard of conduct, the competence of the defendant is to be judged by the lowest standard that would be regarded as acceptable.”
As seen from the record even in the instant case, the Ops 1 to 3 have followed the standards of normal medical parlance in treating the patient when admittedly the patient had come to the hospital more than five hours after watery discharge and the poor prognosis and high risk was explained and a female alive baby was delivered. It is only thereafter that the mother developed complications. As she was already having infection this was treated with antibiotics and a list of antibiotics and injections administered is also seen from the case sheet and progress note. Thereafter her condition deteriorated and she was shifted to Op3 hospital.
17) It is also the contention of the complainant that on 31.7.2004 as many as 34 bottles of blood was transfused and that blood, urine and culture reports were not taken till 31.7.2004. We find force in the contention of Ops that blood culture and sensitivity reports would take 72 hours and therefore they could receive the reports only on 31.7.2004. We also find force in the contention of Ops that on 3rd Post-Operative Day (POD) i.e., on 31.7.2004 the Usg. Abdomen revealed mildly distended intestinal loops, no free fluid, hepatic echo texture normal and calculie seen in the gall bladder. The blood culture and high vaginal swab reports revealed the growth of micro organism infection ‘Klebsiella Pneumonic which indicates severe infection in the body. Immediately antibiotics were started. Still the patient developed septic shock.
18) A brief perusal of the nursing record and doctors’ progress sheet establish that blood transfusion was done on 28.7.2004 and this was duly signed by the nurses and as on the date of admission the complainant’s case is that no proper care was taken and the blood was not transfused on the same day and that the blood transfusion was done only on 31.7.2004 is unsustainable. Page-5 of the case sheet also establishes that : Hb 7.5 and blood group ‘O’ Rh positive, and Platelets were adequate. RBS 84 which establishes that the blood was transfused.
19) The Discharge Summary of Op3 with respect to relevant investigations, departments involved and the complications during the hospital course read as follows:
RELEVENT INVESTIGATIONS
Usg. Abdomen revealed multiple gall bladder calculus, Acute Cholecystitis, moderate ascites, Gr. I. Renal Parenchy and change (31/7/04) RFT increased. LFT increased and Sr. Amylase increased (3540) and diagnosed as a case of POST–OPERATIVE LSCS WITH ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS, ACUTE PANCREATITIS WITH SEPTICAEMIA, HYPOTENSION, ARF AND DIC. USG abdomen- repeat on 4/8/04- * Calculus chotecystatis, *Spleeno-megaly * minimal ascites * Grade II renal parenchymal dis.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Anesthesiology, General Surgery, Nephrology, Gastroenterology and Pulmonology
COMPLICATIONS DURING HOSPITAL COURSE
Patient was on mechanical ventilation and CRRT and antibiotics. As her Hb% and platelet counts were low. Blood and Blood products were transfused and she was on ionotropic support like dobutamine, Noradrenaline and Vasoprersin. Patient was on continuous Ryles tube aspiration. Chest physiotherapy was done. She developed consolidation of lungs on 11/8/04. Tracheastomy was done on11/8/04. Alternate suture removed on 11/8/04. Wound healthy, no discharge from wound. She was sedated / paralyzed as patient was tachynoeic. On 12/8/04 at 2.30 P.M. she has been having hypotension in spite of increasing the doses of dobutamine and noradrenaline B.P was 60/30. As per advise by Nephrologist to hold CRRT till blood pressure improve to 90-100 mmHg (systolic). The patient’s condition and poor prognosis was explained to the husband. Patient was maintaining B.P. with high dose ionotropes. On 13/8/04 at 5.30 P.M. patient had hypotension even with high dose of ionotropes. On 14/08/04 : ECG showed sinustachycardia depressed ST segment in Anterolateral leads. Impression:- Acute coronary insufficiency, hyperkalemia. (Sr.K+.6.2) As Hemodialysis was not possible in view of Hypotension and also CRRT. Medical treatment was tried to correct hyperkalemia. On 15/8/04 at 7.50 A.M : There was sudden fall in the saturation followed by bradycardia and blood pressure was not recordable. Inj. Atropine was given. CPCR started bradycardia continued. Not responding to CPCR. In spite of all resuscitation procedures patient could not be revived and declared as dead at 8.00 A.M.
CAUSE OF DEATH
Hyperkalemia
Acute Respiratory Failure
Septicemia with Septic emic Shock
Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS)
20) The Hon’ble Supreme Court very recently in Dr. P. B. Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another decided on 13.9.2013 reported in 2013 STPL (Web) 735 SC while dealing with a medical negligence case held as follows:
When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is not rendered and the action on the part of the medical practitioner comes within the mischief of negligence, it can be safely concluded that the said doctor -did not perform his duty properly which was expected of him under the law and breached his duty to take care of the patient. Such a duty which a doctor owes to the patient and if not rendered appropriately and when it would amount to negligence is lucidly narrated by this Court in Kusum Sharma and others v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Others; (2010) 3 SCC 480.
The relevant discussions therefrom are reproduced hereinbelow:
“45. According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 26 pp. 17-18, the definition of negligence is as under:
22. Negligence.—Duties owed to patient. A person who holds himself out as ready to
give medical advice or treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and
knowledge for the purpose. Such a person, whether he is a registered medical practitioner
or not, who is consulted by a patient, owes him certain duties, namely, a duty of care in
deciding whether to undertake the case; a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give;
and a duty of care in his administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties
will support an action for negligence by the patient.”
46. In a celebrated and oft cited judgment in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen’s Bench Division)
McNair, L.J. observed:
(i) A doctor is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a
reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular -art, merely because there is a body of
such opinion that takes a contrary view.
“The direction that, where there are two different schools of medical practice, both having
recognition among practitioners, it is not negligent for a practitioner to follow one in preference
to the other accords also with American law; see 70 Corpus Juris Secundum (1951) 952, 953,
Para 44. Moreover, it seems that by American law a failure to warn the patient of dangers of
treatment is not, of itself, negligence McNair, L.J. also observed:
Before I turn to that, I must explain what in law we mean by ‘negligence’. In the ordinary case
which does not involve any special skill, negligence in law means this: some failure to do some
act which a reasonable man in the circumstances would do, or the doing of some act which a
reasonable man in the circumstances would not do; and if that failure or the doing of that act
results in injury, then there is a cause of action. How do you test whether this act or failure is
negligent? In an ordinary case it is generally said, that you judge that by the action of the man in
the street. He is the ordinary man. In one case it has been said that you judge it by the conduct of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus. He is the ordinary man. But where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this man exercising and professing to have that special skill. … A man need not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being found negligent. It is well-established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.”
This is relevant to the instant case as the doctors as seen from the case sheet and discharge summary and also the arguments put forward established that they have followed the standards of normal medical parlance in treating the patient both pre and post operatively.
21) We also observe from the cross-examination of RW1 Dr. C.R. Das that the patient was suffering from anaemia and loss of appetite on the date of admission. She was advised haemoglobin, vaginal swab for culture and blood for culture and total leucocyte count. He deposed in his cross-examination that the patient’s mother and the patient herself told him that there was leakage of fluid since 5.00 a.m. and submitted that there is abnormal delay. He further deposed that even during post-operative period blood, urine, CBP etc. were conducted on 29.7.2004. He denied that surgery was not done properly and submits that the hospital has all the equipment to meet the exigencies and after diagnosing that the patient was suffering from Septic Shock, General Physician Dr. Vittal Reddy visited the patient at about 4.30 p.m. on 30.7.2004. He advised to continue the same treatment and further advised for septic shock and dysfunction of kidney to start ‘Depamine Drip. Administer Amplicin, Taxim, Decdron, Metrogyl before starting Blood Transfusion and later the patient was discharged. RW1 once again denied that proper investigations were not done nor that the surgery was not conducted properly.
22) Taking into consideration, the documentary evidence i.e., the discharge summary and the case sheet, and more importantly the high risk condition of the patient at the time of admission with abnormal delay of more than five hours which led to set-in of infection, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to establish that the opposite parties did not follow the standards of normal medical parlance. As seen from the hospital record the patient was stabilised first and the case sheet shows continuous leakage. There was foetus distress at 12.00 noon because of which after taking high risk consent, caesarean operation was performed at about 2.30 p.m., and a female baby was born and thereafter neo-natal high risk and the infection that was set in because of belated admission, she was treated by Ops with due care and caution with reasonable degree of skill and diligence. The blood culture and high vaginal swab reports revealed the growth of micro organism-infection ‘Klebsiella Pneumonic’ which indicates severe infection in the body for which again the opposite parties as seen from the record have treated with due care and administered the necessary antibiotics and given her all support and proper care.
23) We also observe from the record that though RW1 had deposed before the Dist. Forum and stated the line of treatment he has rendered, still the complainant did not file any expert opinion to controvert his stand relating to the line of treatment adopted by them.
24) We rely on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ms. Ins. Malhotra Versus Dr. A. Kriplani & Others reported in CDJ 2009 SC 589 in which the Apex Court held that merely because the patient died it cannot be construed that there is negligence on behalf of doctors as the opposite parties established that he is a high risk patient.
“In the case of medical negligence, it has been held that the subject of negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for treatment with a difference. There is a marked tendency to look for a human actor to blame for an untoward event, a tendency which is closely linked with the desire to punish. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be found to answer for it. An empirical study would reveal that the background to a mishap is frequently far more complex than may generally be assumed. It can be demonstrated that actual blame for the outcome has to be attributed with great caution. For a medical accident or failure, the responsibility may lie with the medical practitioner, and equally it may not. The inadequacies of the system, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature of human psychology itself and sheer chance may have combined to produce a result in which the doctor's contribution is either relatively or completely blameless. The human body and its working is nothing less than a highly complex machine. Coupled with the complexities of medical science, the scope for misimpressions, misgivings and misplaced allegations against the operator, i.e. the doctor, cannot be ruled out. One may have notions of best or ideal practice which are different from the reality of how medical practice is carried on or how the doctor functions in real life. The factors of pressing need and limited resources cannot be ruled out from consideration. Dealing with a case of medical negligence needs a deeper understanding of the practical side of medicine. The purpose of holding a professional liable for his act or omission, if negligent, is to make life safer and to eliminate the possibility of recurrence of negligence in future. The human body and medical science, both are too complex to be easily understood. To hold in favour of existence of negligence, associated with the action or inaction of a medical professional, requires an in-depth understanding of the working of a professional as also the nature of the job and of errors committed by chance, which do not necessarily involve the element of culpability.
18.2) Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.”
Even in the instant case admittedly the patiently was belatedly admitted after more than five hours of watery leakage. In fact the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Dr. C.R. Das as well as several doctors tried to save the mother as is the dictum but in spite of their best efforts and medical care, only the baby could be saved and the mother died due to complications of multi organ failure and septic shock.
25) Keeping in view the afore mentioned judgements and also the documentary evidence along with the case sheet, discharge summary and arguments of both sides and the law on medical negligence, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish that the opposite parties did not follow the acceptable normal standards of medical parlance. We do not find any merits in the appeal.
26) In the result this appeal is dismissed but without costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER
2) ________________________________
*pnr MEMBER
UP LOAD – O.K.
.
