Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10/09/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.38/2007, Mr.Chandrashekar Singh V/s. Shree Nursing Home & Anr., by Addl. District Forum, Thane. It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opponents (hereinafter referred to as “opponents”) on account of alleged medical negligence shown by them, particularly, on 24/11/2006 when wife of complainant-Chandrashekar Singh (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”), namely, Late Alka was readmitted under condition of bleeding. It is not in dispute that appellant No.2/opponent-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve runs a Maternity Home-Shree Nursing Home. It is also not in dispute that appellant/opponent-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve is a qualified Gynaecologist. According to the complainant Late Alka was admitted for her delivery at opponent No.1-Nursing Home under care of opponent No.2-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve. She had delivered a female child on the same day and was discharged on 07/11/2006. At the time of delivery of Late Alka, it was a case of Adherent Placenta and the complainant was duly warned about it with advice at the time of discharge to ensure removal of piece of placenta attached to the part of Uterus within next forty days. The relevant statement made in the complaint reads as under :-
“The complainant states that on 29.10.2006 he admitted his wife for delivery in Nursing Home. She delivered a girl child on 29.10.2006 at 12.40 p.m. She was doing fine and on 7.11.2006 she was discharged from the Hospital, with an instructions to remove a piece of placental attached to the part of Uterus of the patient within next 40 days.”
2. It is further alleged that on 24/11/2006 suddenly the condition of Late Alka was deteriorated as she complained of bleeding and therefore, she was readmitted around 09.30 p.m. on that day in the opponent No.1-Nursing Home. Doctor advised to the complainant to bring two units of blood from the Blood Bank at Vashi and he accordingly arranged for the same, but noticed that condition of Late Alka was very serious and it is further alleged by him that he was shocked to learn that doctor has already initiated the operation without blood as required and therefore, he inferred that such act on the part of doctor led to deteriorate the condition of Late Alka. Doctor thereafter suddenly advised to shift Late Alka to SionHospital (which is a CorporationHospital at Mumbai) for further treatment where Late Alka died due to excessive bleeding. Post mortem of Late Alka was also carried out. It is further alleged by the complainant that had the placenta tissue attached to the lower uterus segment removed she would not have died. The consumer complaint is filed accordingly. District Forum upholding the contention of the complainant directed the opponents to pay compensation of `6,89,334/- along with costs of `5,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby the present appeal is preferred by the original opponents.
3. At the time of hearing of the appeal, respondent and his Counsel remained absent. Therefore, appeal is heard in their absence.
4. The complainant hardly adduced any evidence to support his contention and to establish his case of alleged medical negligence by the opponents. The fact of presence of Adherent Placenta is not in dispute. This fact and condition of Late Alka was admittedly made known to the complainant. She was discharged after delivery on 07/11/2006. As per the Discharge Card, bed rest was advised to Late Alka and advice was given to report immediately if any bleeding is noticed. As alleged by the complainant himself, he was further advised to get removed the piece of placenta within forty days. It is further revealed from the evidence and material placed on record that doctor could not remove the piece of placenta as it was not possible unless the entire uterus was removed and the complainant since had two daughters, did not consent for removal of the uterus at the time of delivery.
5. As far as case of Adherent Placenta is concerned, as stated by opponent No.2-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve in her written version supported by her affidavit as well as in the affidavit by expert witness Dr.Kamal Dharmaji Shastrakar, when the fertilized zygote gets attached to the lower uterine segment it later on gives rise to placenta praevia which is natural in its formation and doctors play no role in its occurrence. Adherent Placenta occurred when chorionic villus gets anchored to the myometrium. Depending on its penetration into the myometrium one gets placenta acceta, increta or percreta. Whenever the deciduas of the uterus which is thin, there are chances of developing an adherent placenta. The incidence of adherent placenta is high in placenta praevia, or on previous LSCS scar. Therefore, adherent placenta praevia is natural in its formation and doctors play no role in its occurrence. Therefore, it could be further inferred that there is no medical negligence shown either by opponent No.2-Dr.Smt.Karve or by her Nursing Home when the delivery of Late Alka had taken place and she was discharged on 07/11/2006.
6. It appears that on late evening of 24/11/2006 Late Alka was brought to opponent No.1-Nursing Home in severe condition and she already at a loss of blood in alarming quantity. The situation explained by opponent No.2-Smt.Karve in her written version supported by the affidavit reads as under :-
“38. With respect to para 4 of the Complaint, OP No.2 submits that when Mrs.Alka was brought to the hospital on 24-11-06 around 9.30 pm she was bleeding heavily. By that time she had substantial blood loss. The primary line of treatment applicable was to transfuse lost blood and to arrest further bleeding. Exactly this line of treatment was carried out. Mr.Singh was asked to bring 4 bottles of blood immediately and the patient was taken to OT to start treatment to arrest bleeding. Treatment to control further blood loss was started even before blood arrived. NO SURGICAL PROCEDURE WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE PATIENT ON THAT DAY. All that done was a conservative procedure (packing) to arrest bleeding supported by medical treatment simultaneously.
39. It would be totally incorrect to let a heavily bleeding patient bleed until blood arrived more so when there was no guaranty when the blood would arrive. Under the circumstance precious time would be lost and the patient could bleed to death. ARREST OF BLEEDING HAS TO BE UNDERTAKEN WITH OR WITHOUT BLOOD.”
7. There is no contra evidence to disbelieve this fact. Under the circumstances, it could be seen that the normal medical protocol was duly followed by the opponent No.2-Dr.Smt. Karve. Considering the condition of Late Alka and the availability of required facilities to meet her critical condition, Late Alka was further advised to shift to SionHospital at Mumbai. She was accordingly shifted. There is no record available as to her condition on arrival at SionHospital. The only fact which further emerged as an undisputed fact is that Late Alka ultimately died at SionHospital. Her Post Mortem was carried out but the conclusions of the opinions as to her cause of death was reserved awaiting receipt of Histopathology Report. Final opinion is not on record. It is alleged by the opponents that it was not a case of unnatural death as recorded in the record. Since the complainant did not contradict said statement of the opponents and since no other better material is on record to hold otherwise, we find no reason to disbelieve said statement.
8. Thus, considering the material placed on record, hardly there is any evidence or material to establish any medical negligence on the part of the appellants/opponents. District Forum did not appreciate all these evidence and material placed on record with legal consideration and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Moral judgements perhaps have no place in the eyes of law. Death of Late Alka, certainly, was unfortunate but it does not ipso-facto established any medical negligence on the part of the appellants/opponents. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10/09/2007 is set aside and in the result, the consumer complaint stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 16th January 2013.
