C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/110
COMPLAINANT : Parbati Dey,
W/o Joydev Dey,
C/o Gourango Dey,
Vill. Rakhalgachhi,
P.O. Bahirgachhi,
P.S. Dhubulia, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Nadia Nursing Home
37, Kurchipota Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
2) Nirnoy Diagnostic Centre,
IMA Bhawan,
9, Church Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
3) Dr. Partha Lodh
4) Dr. P.K. Bhattachariya,
Both attached to Nirnoy
Diagnostic Centre, IMA Bhawan,
9, Church Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
5) Dr. Pravat Ch. Chowdhury,
of Mangalik Medical Polyclinic,
Arabindo Road, P.O. Krishnagar,
P.S. Kowtali, Dist. Nadia
- Dr. A. Ch. Mondal
attached to Nadia Nursing Home,
37, Kurchipota Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
- Dr. T.K. Das,
Child Specialist, attached to
Nadia Nursing Home,
37, Kurchipota Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 25th November, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that in April, 10th she became pregnant for the second time. Initially she was examined by the doctor of Dadupur, PSC who calculated the probable date for delivery as 29.12.10 on the basis of LMP dtd. 22.03.10. Thereafter, for better treatment on 13.08.10 she was examined by the OP, Dr. Provat Chandra Chowdhury at Krishnagar Mangalik Medical Polyclinic. On 18.10.10 she had undergone USG test at Nirnoy Diagnostic Centre under the supervision of Dr. Partha Lodh (OP No. 3) and Dr. P.K. Bhattacharya (OP No. 4) who issued a USG report on the self same date mentioning that the foetus became matured of 36 weeks with weight of 2641 grams. Thereafter, on 20.10.10 she was again examined by the OP No. 5, Dr. P.C. Chowdhury, who advised her for urgent admission at Nadia Nursing Home (OP No. 1) as the foetus became matured and immediate operation and delivery were needed. As per his advice, the complainant was admitted at the said nursing home on 20.10.10 and operation was done by Dr. A.C. Mondal (OP No. 6) at 1.30 pm. After operation her husband was intimated by the on-duty nurse that the baby delivered by the complainant was an immature one which required better treatment and as such the OP No. 7 was called for by the OP No. 1 to treat the baby. But unfortunately, the said baby expired on that date at about 9.45 pm. It is her specific allegation that due to gross negligence and inaction on the part of the OPs, she delivered a premature baby who ultimately, expired. So she has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 1, Nadia Nursing Home has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his specific contention that the complainant is to prove the allegation regarding his negligence in this case. Rather he submits that all the allegations are baseless as he took proper step after delivery of the child by calling the OP No. 7 for the treatment of the baby. He has no liability in this delivery of the baby. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case against him and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The OP No. 3, Dr. Partha Lodh has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that he is a practising doctor attached with IMA Bhawan, Krishnagar. He has done the USG of the patient only once and he never treated her at any point of time and he has submitted the report which is a software generated output which depends principally on three parameters namely femoral length, abdominal circumference and BPD sonological finding which may vary from actual maturity state of foetus and correlation with other observations like maternal clinical finding, previous medical records to come to a final conclusion. So in preparing his report there is no negligence on his part and hence the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
OP No. 5, Dr. Provat Chandra Chowdhury has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that he examined the complainant at his private chamber a few number of times and found that she was pregnant for the second time. On 13.10.10 he advised her to undergo an Ultrasonogram to detect the presentation of the foetus as well as gestational age. On 20.10.10 the complainant visited his chamber with a complaint of frequent pain in lower abdomen in dribbling (discharge of the fluid contain in the gestational sac) due to rapture of the sac. Considering her condition she advised for caesarian operation on the ground (1) Previous history of caesarean section, (2) Breech presentation (3) Rapture of membranes leading to leaking of liquor and as per the request of the complainant he advised her for admission at Nadia Nursing Home. He examined the USG report of the complainant on 20.10.10 which showed a viable foetus of gestational age of 36 weeks with weight of foetus 2.641 kg. So he advised initially for shifting the patient at a Government Hospital for management by an expert doctor, but at the request of the patient party he advised for operation at Nadia Nursing Home. In spite of that he disclosed before the patient party that the final outcome of the pregnancy in question depended absolutely on the decision of the obstetrician under whom she would be admitted. So he has no negligence in treating and advising this complainant. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
The OP No. 6 has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the complainant was admitted at Nadia Nursing Home on 20.10.10 with history of 36 weeks plus gestational age with breech presentation with foetus weight 2641 grams as per the USG report of the patient. The patient complained of lower abdominal pain with reduced foetus murmur. He examined the patient and found that she was in early labour with breech presentation with bradycerdia. At that situation decision of caesarian section was taken to save the life of the baby with consent of the patient parties. The operation was successful and the complainant gave birth to a female child weighing about 2 kgs, but the baby was suffering from asphyxia and without wasting time an expert paediatrician Dr. T.K. Das was called to save her life, who examined the baby properly and treatment was also given. But ultimately the baby expired. So he has no negligence in this case and therefore it is liable to be dismissed against him.
The OP No. 7, Dr. T.K. Das has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that he is attached to Nadia Nursing Home. On 20.10.10 at about 1.30 pm to see the condition of the new born baby, he came to the nursing home at 1.30 pm. After examining the baby he found that she was in a very serious condition as the baby was a premature one as well as having low birth ‘weight and was asphyxiated and dusky in appearance and generalized cyanosis which had little chance to survive. In spite of that he started treatment and intimated the condition of the baby to the patient party, but ultimately the baby expired on the self same date. So he has no negligence in treating the baby. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No. 2: Have the OPs any negligence in treatment of the baby and its death also?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with the documents filed by the complainant and the written versions filed by the OPs it is available on record that this complainant became pregnant for the second time who was initially treated by the doctor of Dadupur, PSC who calculated her probable date of delivery as 20.12.10 on the basis of the LMP dtd. 22.03.10. It is available on record that for the better treatment this complainant was examined by the OP No. 5, Dr. Provat Chandra Chowdhury, on 13.08.10 at Krishnagar Mangalik Medical Polyclinic. Thereafter, the complainant patient had undergone USG test at Nirnoy Diagnostic Centre under the supervision of OP No. 3 & 4 who issued one USG report mentioning that the foetus became matured of 36 weeks having weight of 2641 grams. On 20.10.10 she was again examined by the OP No. 5 who advised for admission at Government Hospital as the complainant disclosed of frequent pain in lower abdomen with dribbling (discharge of the fluid contain in the gestational sac) due to rapture of the sac. But subsequently, at the advice of the OP No. 5, she was admitted at Nadia Nursing Home where caesarian operation was done on her by Dr. A.C. Mondal (OP No. 6). It is the case of the complainant that as the baby was premature one, so ultimately she could not survive and this operation was caused due to negligence and wrong advice of the OP No. 5, Dr. P.C. Chowdhury. So she has filed this case claiming for reliefs against all the OPs. Now the main question is whether the OPs had any negligence in the caesarian of the patient complainant and at the death of the new born baby. All the OPs have categorically stated, specially the OP No. 5 submits that he relied on the USG report of the patient dtd. 18.10.10 which showed that gestational age of the foetus was 36 weeks having weight of 2641 grams. In that report it was stated that amniotic fluid was adequate. This report was prepared by the OP No. 3 & 4. The OP No. 5, Dr. P.C. Chowdhury first examined the patient on 13.08.10, thereafter, on 13.10.10 when he advised for USG and the USG was done on 18.06.10. On 20.10.10, he further examined the patient on perusal of the USG. On that date the patient complainant disclosed about pain in lower abdomen with dribbling as revealed from the prescription of the doctor. Besides this, in the written version it is categorically stated by the OP No. 3 and 5 that they found discharge of the fluid contain in the gestational sac due to rapture of the sac and considering breech condition the OP No. 5 advised for caesarian operation on the ground (1) Previous history of caesarean section, (2) Breech presentation i.e., the hind portion of the foetus was at the lower position instead of the normal cephalic presentation, i.e., head at the lower position (3) Rapture of membranes leading to leaking of liquor, i.e., the fluid contained inside gestational sac which ensure the survival of the foetus inside the uterus. This OP also considered the USG report which showed the age of the baby as 36 weeks which means it was in a mature one and the weight was also normal. So considering all the conditions he advised for caesarian for the baby for the interest of the patient as well as the baby. From the prescription dtd. 20.10.10 it is also available that initially he advised for hospitalization and thereafter advised for admission at Nadia Nursing Home. It is available from the medical book, Practical Obstetrics and Gynaecology by Dr. Kalyani Mukherjee and Dr. Amitava Mukherjee at page 324-325 in which it is stated about indications and caesarian sections which include breech presentation, multiple pregnancy, previous caesarian delivery. In the present case the OP No. 7 has categorically stated about the breech presentation of the baby in the womb which means that the head was at the lower position. Ld. lawyer for the complainant has not denied this in course of argument. Besides this, from the prescription of the OP No. 5 and also the written version filed by him it is available on record that the complainant disclosed about her pain in lower abdomen. On examining her the doctor found discharge of the fluid contain in the gestational sac due to rapture of the sac. This complainant already gave birth to one child previously by caesarian. So considering the condition of the patient and her baby and after perusing the USG report the OP No. 5 advised for immediate caesarian of the baby for the protection of the complainant. The Dr. A. C. Mondal operated the patient who has categorically stated in the written version that the complainant was admitted at Nadia Nursing Home on 20.10.10 with the history of 36 weeks pregnancy with gestational age with breech presentation as per the USG report and he also stated that the patient complained about lower abdominal pain with reduced foetus murmur. On examining the patient he found that she was in early labour with breech presentation with bradycerdia and at that situation decision of caesarian section was taken to save the life of the baby with consent of the patient parties. The USG report shows that the baby was 36 weeks old. It was done by Dr. P. Lodh, who has filed written version in this case and oral evidences also. The OP No. 5 in reply of interrogatories has categorically stated that he clearly explained to the patient party about the cause of caesarian and also regarding the complaint about the patient. He has also stated that breech presentation is a rare case. Breech presentation is not denied by the complainant also. The OP No. 7, who treated the new born baby after birth has categorically stated that after examining the baby he found that she was in very serious condition as she was a premature one having low birth weight and was suffering from asphyxiated and dusky in appearance and generalized cyanosis which had little chance to survive. In spite of that he treated the baby, but ultimately expired.
Therefore, after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both sides and considering the facts of this case along with the documentary evidences on record, we are of the view that the OP No. 5 advised the complainant patient for caesarian operation as she complained of lower abdomen pain on 20.10.10 before him and the doctor found breech presentation of the baby along with the discharge of fluid due to rapture of sac of the patient which supports by the writings of the medical book. So we don’t find any error on the part of this OP who advised for early caesarian of the baby as the USG report also showed 36 weeks age and breech presentation. So all these conditions compelled the OP No. 5 to advise for early caesarian of the baby to save the life of the patient as well as the baby also. We don’t find any negligence on the part of these OPs in the caesarian operation and the death of the baby also who was duly treated by the OP No. 7 after birth.
In view of the above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has not become able to prove her case. So she is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/110 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
