DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 514 of 09-11-2011

Decided on : 26-09-2011

1. Manpreet Singh, aged about 22 years S/o Sh. Harmander Singh.

2. Gurshabad minor son aged 1-1/2/1-3/4 years

3. Gurshan minor son aged 2 months

4. Ekamjot minor daughter aged 2 months

   minor children of Manpreet Singh through their next friend and guardian Manpreet Singh, father of the minors

   R/o Village Phullo Mithi, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

.... Complainants

Versus

1. The State of Punjab through Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda.

2. The Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Bathinda.

3. The Senior Medical Officer, Women & Children Hospital, Bathinda.

4. Dr. Dheera Gupta, Medical Officer, Women & Children Hospital, Bathinda.

5. Dr. Neelam Medical Officer (Anaesthesiologist)

6. Dr. Rawanjit, Medical Officer, Women & Children Hospital, Bathinda.

7. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Grover Building, near Post Office Chowk, Malout, District Mukatsar through its Branch Manager

8. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at 7-A, Civil Lines, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. B.S. Mann, counsel for complainant

For the opposite parties : Sh. B S Brar, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.

Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 4.

Sh. Raman Khattar, counsel for opposite party Nos. 5 & 6.

Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 7.

Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite party No. 8.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that Simarjit Kaur, wife of complainant No. 1 and mother of complainant Nos. 2 to 4 remained under treatment of doctors during the pregnancy period. The complainant No. 1 filed the complainant on behalf of other complainants being their guardian/father. After check-up and ultra sound, it was told that she would give birth to twin and the delivery would be ceasearian. The complainant No. 1 got Simarjit Kaur checked vide OPD No. 45930 dated 18-08-2010 from opposite party No. 4. After the expected date of delivery, on 27-08-2010 he took his wife to Women and Children Hospital, Bathinda for delivery. The opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 assured the complainant that they would take care of Simarjit Kaur and newly born children and there would be no problem. Believing their assurance, complainant got his wife admitted at 10.40 on 27-08-2010 vide Admission No. 4786. The opposite party No. 4 to 6 conducted ceasearian delivery of Simarjit Kaur and she delivered one male and one female child. After delivery and stitches, she was shifted in the ward and thereafter opposite party No. 4 to 6 left the hospital leaving her in the hands of nursing staff only. The condition of Simarjit Kaur started worsening after some time of the operation. The nursing staff informed opposite party No. 4 regarding the conditions of Simarjit Kaur, but she was not attended by any doctor. When the condition of Simarjit Kaur deteriorated, the opposite party No. 4 in connivance with opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 referred her to Adesh Hospital, Barnala Road, Bathinda at 8.30 p.m. The complainant and other family members took Simarjit Kaur to Adesh Hospital, Bathinda and after examining her, doctors of that hospital declared her dead. The complainant alleged that opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 and other nursing staff were negligent in not taking care of Simarjit Kaur after ceasearian delivery and she died. The opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 and other nursing staff did not listen to the complainant despite repeated requests made by him. The complainant No. 1 has lost his wife at young age while complainant Nos. 2 to 4 have lost their mother and deprived of the motherly care. The complainant got issued legal notice upon the opposite parties for payment of 20.00 lacs as compensation but the opposite parties have given vague and evasive reply denying liability. Hence, the complainants have filed the present complaint.

2. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 filed their joint written reply and took legal objection that in the case of medical negligence, opinion of the medical board is necessary which has not been done in this case and Adesh Hospital, Bathinda has not been made party to this complaint. Simarjit Kaur was admitted by the obstetrician i.e. opposite party No. 4 who is expert surgeon. Ceasearian operation was conducted and two live babies were extracted from the belly of the patient. Thereafter Simarjit Kaur was shifted in the ward, she was fully conscious and all the vital signs were within normal limits. The decision for referring the patient to Adesh Hospital, was taken by the operating surgeon i.e. opposite party No. 4. She was given treatment but unfortunately she died but the complainant has not disclosed this fact in the complaint. It has been pleaded that patient was shifted to ward in clinically stable condition. There was no negligence on the part of doctors at all. The opposite parties have conducted the inquiry and found that there was no fault on the part of the doctors of the hospital and the patient was given best treatment.

3. The opposite party No. 4 filed her separate written reply and took legal objection that nothing was charged and hence complainant is not consumer. It has been pleaded that complainant has deliberately twisted the facts as per his own convenience. The duty of opposite party No. 4 was from 8.00 a.m to 2.00 p.m. and thereafter the opposite party No. 4 remained on SOS duty in case of any emergency call and the staff of the hospital used to take care of the patients in the absence of doctors and used to give proper medicines etc.,to the patients as per the advice of the doctors. In case of any emergency, the staff used to call the doctors. The opposite party No. 4 has pleaded that ceasearian was conducted and Simarjit Kaur delivered twins and after delivery and stitches, she was shifted to the Ward. The operation was successful and the patient was shifted from O.T. to Ward at 12.15 p.m./noon. BP and pulse of the patient was normal and opposite party No. 4 remained present in the hospital upto 2.00 p.m. and there was no complaint by the patient of any type. At about 2.00 p.m. i.e. before leaving the hospital, the opposite party No. 4 again visited the patient Simarjit Kaur and there was no complaint or complication of any type. The patient was absolutely fine and opposite party No. 4 left the hospital at 2.00 p.m. after completion of her duty hours and thereafter she was on duty on SOS basis but she never received any such call either from the attendants of the patient or from the staff of the hospital regarding any complication. The patient Simarjit Kaur felt some uneasiness at about 6.25 p.m. and the staff nurse Kuldeep Kaur made a call to opposite party No. 4 and told about the same. On inquiry by opposite party No. 4, staff nurse told that the BP and pulse were normal and accordingly, opposite party No. 4 suggested medicine to the said staff nurse on phone and further asked her to send the vehicle. She again made telephone call at 7.00 p.m. to the hospital and it was told to her that the patient was normal. It has been pleaded that the patient was in shock but however, urine and bleeding was normal. The opposite party No. 4 started the required treatment to the patient and also asked the attendant of the patient to arrange blood. The patient was also normal at 8.00 p.m. and the pulse and BP was also normal. The relatives of the patient Simarjit Kaur could not arrange the blood upto 8.20 p.m. and in order to determine the reason for shock, Radiologist was also called on mobile but he was not available and as such, ultra sound test could not be got conducted. In such circumstances and for the safety of the patient, the best way was to refer the patient to the higher hospital/medical college for further investigation and treatment and accordingly, she advised the attendant of the patient to take her to some higher hospital/medical college. The patient left the hospital at 8.25 p.m. and at that time, BP and pulse were normal. The patient had left the hospital at 8.25 p.m. and she was taken to Adesh Hospital, Bathinda, in an Ambulance and might have reached the hospital at about 9.00 p.m but however, she died at about 11.30/12.00 midnight and as such, it cannot be alleged that the patient was declared dead by the doctors of Adesh Hospital on her reach to the hospital. The opposite party and the total staff acted with due and proper skill and adopted all precautionary measures while performing the ceasearian upon Simarjit Kaur and there was absolutely no surgical complications to the patient nor there was any complaint after operation for a period of more than seven hours. The complainant had also filed a compliant against opposite party No. 4 before the department and the department enquiry was also conducted against opposite party No. 4. Two enquiries were conducted i.e. one by SMO and the second by Board and during both the enquiries, no negligence was found on the part of opposite party No. 4.

4. The opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 in their joint written reply pleaded that complainant brought his wife Simarjit Kaur to Women & Children Hospital, Bathinda, for delivery on 27-8-2010 vide hospital bed head ticket. They being anesthesiologist attended the patient only to administer anesthesia as per the requirements of the obstetrician/opposite party No. 4 who planned to do ceasearian on her who is expert surgeon. Thorough pre-anesthetic check up was done and informed consent was taken from the husband and mother of the patient regarding procedure of anesthesia. It has been pleaded that opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 attended immediately when called for urgent surgery. Proper pre-anesthetic check up was done as per standard and common guidelines of latest science. Proper drug and dose of anesthetic was given by Dr. Neelam at 11.37 a.m. Two live babies were extracted at 11.41 a.m. and 11.43 a.m. During surgery, ECG, Heart rate, BP, SP02 was continuously monitored and were stable. There was no anesthesia complication and the patient was shifted to ward in clinically stable condition. She was fully conscious, all protective reflexes present. All the vital signs were within normal limits. The decision for referring the patient to Adesh Hospital, a prestigious institution was taken entirely by the operating surgeon i.e. opposite party No. 4 as the complication was not at all related to anesthesia. Moreover, patient Simarjit Kaur was admitted in Adesh Hospital, where she was given treatment but unfortunately she died there and the complainant has not disclosed this fact in the complaint.

5. The opposite party No. 7 filed its separate written reply and pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 4 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, the opposite party No. 7 is not liable to any compensation to the complainants. Otherwise also, the liability, if any, and quantum thereof is strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and maximum liability for one accident/occurrence is Rs. 5,00,000/- although no amount is payable in this case.

6. The opposite party No. 8 filed separate written reply and took legal objection that complainant is not consumer as no consideration has been paid. It has been pleaded that opposite party No. 5 & 6 i.e. Dr.Neelam Kumar and Dr. Rawanjit Kaur Brar have obtained Doctor Professional Indemnity Insurance Policies for their business premises addresses i.e. Kothi No. 214, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda and Kothi No 22389, Street No. 4, Shant Nagar, Bathinda. The deceased was operated/treated at Civil Hospital, Bathinda by opposite party No. 5 & 6 which is not the insured premises and as such, the opposite party No. 8 is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

8. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

9. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant No. 1 got checked his wife Simarjit Kaur vide OPD No. 45930 dated 18-08-2010 from opposite party No. 4 who declared that she has twin pregnancy and that the delivery would not be safe in normal way rather caesarean delivery is necessary. Simarjit Kaur was admitted with opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 on 27-08-2010 vide Admission No. 4786 at 10.40 a.m. on 27-08-2010. The opposite parties charged Rs. 100/- i.e. Rs. 50/- against receipt No. 38 Book No. 1531 dated 27-08-2010 and Rs. 50/- against receipt No. 34 Book No. 1531 dated 27-08-2010 for admission and other charges relating to Simarjit Kaur patient. The opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 conducted caesarean delivery of Simarjit Kaur and she delivered one male and other female child. After delivery and stitches, Simarjit Kaur was shifted in the ward and opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 left the hospital and did not take care of her and they left her in the hands of nursing staff. The condition of Simarjit Kaur started worsening after some time of the operation and the nursing staff make many telephone calls to opposite party No. 4 in this regard, but neither opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 nor any other doctor attended Simarjit Kaur. The learned counsel for the complainants further submitted that when Simarjit Kaur was going to die, opposite party No. 4 in connivance with opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 and others referred her to Adesh Hospital, Bathinda at 8.30 p.m. and doctors of that hospital after examining her declared her dead. The opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 and other nursing staff were negligent in not taking care of Simarjit Kaur after caesarean delivery due to which she died.

   On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 submitted that the burden of proving the deficiency is on the person who alleges it. In the present case, the complainant have failed to prove medical negligence by way of expert evidence. The operation was performed by Dr. Dheera Gupta with due diligence, reasonable and proper care. She had received appreciation certificate by Hon'ble Deputy Commissioner on 26-01-2010 for her work done in the field of medicine. The duty of opposite party No. 4 was from 8.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m. and thereafter she remained on SOS duty in case of any emergency call. Caesarean of Simarjit Kaur was conducted and she delivered twins. The operation was successful and the patient was shifted from O.T. to Ward at 12.15 p.m./noon. BP and pulse of the patient was normal and Dr. Dheera Gupta remained present in the hospital upto 2.00 p.m. and there was no complaint by the patient of any type. Before leaving the hospital, opposite party No. 4 again visited the patient Simarjit Kaur and there was no complaint or complication to her. Simarjit Kaur felt some uneasiness at about 6.25 p.m. and the staff nurse Kuldeep Kaur made a call to opposite party No. 4 and told her about the same and also conveyed that BP and Pulse were normal. The opposite party No. 4 suggested medicines to the said staff nurse on phone and further asked her to send the vehicle in case of emergency. At 7.25 the opposite party No. 4 made a telephone call to the hospital and the staff nurse told that the patient was normal. The patient was in shock but urine and bleeding was normal. The opposite party No. 4 started required treatment and also asked the attendant to arrange blood. The radiologist was also called to determine the reasons for shock. The relatives of patient Simarjit Kaur could not arrange the blood upto 8.20 p.m. and radiologist was also not available. In such circumstances and for the safety of patient, the patient was referred to Adesh Medical College for further investigation. The patient left the civil hospital at 8.25 p.m. and she was taken to Adesh Hospital in an Ambulance that means she might have reached the hospital at about 9.00 p.m. but however, she died at about 11.30/12.00 midnight, hence it cannot be said that patient was declared dead by the doctors of Adesh Hospital on her reach to the hospital.

   The learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 submitted that operation was performed by opposite party No. 4 successfully. During surgery ECG, Heart rate, BP, SP02 was continuously monitored and were stable. Simarjit Kaur was shifted to the ward in clinically stable conditions. She was fully conscious, all protective reflexes present. All the vital signs were within normal limits. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of opposite party No. 5 & 6/anesthesiologists at all.

10. Simarjit Kaur, wife of complainant No. 1 visited Civil Hospital vide Ex. C-8 on 18-08-2010 wherein Dr. Dheera Gupta checked her and as per details mentioned on Ex. C-8 .. LMP 7-12-2009, V.A 36 wks, 1^st Breech FHS +..and after necessary tests some medicines were advised to her. Thereafter Simarjit Kaur visited opposite party No. 4 on 27-08-2010 vide Ex. R-27 wherein it has been mentioned :- ....Ist Breech....2^nd lie.....Admit for LSCS. A perusal of Ex. R-28 Admission record of Simarjit Kaur reveals that LSCS was done. The relevant portion of said Admission file is reproduced hereunder :-

    “....LSCS c B/L tube /SA

    Abd. opened by Tr. Incision in layers. An alive baby born as breech at 11.41 a.m. 2^nd alive baby born as breech at 11.42 a.m. on 27-08-2010. Abdomen closed in layers. ASD done. B/L tube done with relatives consent

    Vagina cleaned.

    ....6.26 p.m. got call from S/N Kuldeep C/o pain (backache) and Pt. C/o Palpitations ...gastritis

    ....P.R. 80/Min. B.P. 100/70 mm systolic, BP/V WNL, Abd. Soft, R/L running .

    .....Asked to send vehicle for emergency call

     

    ....7 p.m. called S/N Kuldeep, asked about Pt/s conditions C She told to be stable and she has sent the Class IV and call for vehicle.

    ....7.17 p.m. Got call from night S/N, Pt. C/o Palpitations, BP 90 by pulse, Told her I am on way in my own vehicle.

    ....7.25 p.m. Pt. Attended, Cold, clammy, Palor ++, PR feeble, BP Not felt, BP/v

    ....Call for BT (emergency) sent ...?Intraaledonuional Hge

    .....8 p.m. Relatives again asked to bring BT

    ....Call to Radiologist on mobile ...As ultrasonologist not available (out of station) USG not possible.

    ....Adv. Referral to Medical college for investigation and Rx

    ..8.25 Pt. Comfortable, slightly disoriented

    B.P. 120/70 MM, P.R. 100/Min, BP/B WNL, Polor ++

    ...Pt referred to Medical College, Adesh Bhucho for investigation and Rx

    With Dopamine Drip on one side

    ...Plain I/V RL on other side.”

11. A perusal of Patient File Ex. R-29 of Adesh Institute of Medical Science & Research, Bathinda reveals that Simarjit Kaur was admitted in the said hospital at 9.30 p.m. on 27-08-2010. The relevant portion of said patient file is reproduced hereunder :-

    “Pt. Admitted in Emergency at 9.30 p.m. on 27-08-2010. Pt. Shifted to I.C.U. from Emergency at 9.35 p.m. on 27-8-2010. Pt. Received in ICU at 9.35 on 27-08-2010.

    ....Expired at 12.20 a.m. on 28-8-2010.

    ...Case summary.. Patient admitted as P2L3 Post LSCS today, referred from CH, Bathinda with Post portum shock, with Chest pain & dyspnoea ..giddiness........

    ...Pt had repeated cardiac arrest. Resuscitation and CPR done according to protocol. But pt. could not be revived despite all possible measures. Declared dead on 28-8-2010 at 12.20 A.M.

    ...P2L3 with Postportum shock ...? Embolism with Cardiac Arrest.”

12. After the death of Simarjit Kaur, the complainant No. 1 filed complaint with the higher authorities/department of civil Hospital and on his complaint, two enquiries were conducted i.e. one by SMO and the second by Board. Dr. B.S. Gill, Sr. Medical Officer vide his report Ex. R-26 has concluded that no negligence was found on the part of Dr. Dheera Gupta. The English version of last two paras of the said report are reproduced hereunder :-

    “...Record regarding treatment, report of Medical Board, statements of Dr. Dheera Gupta, attending staff and complainant were perused. As per record of Medical Board, the operation of the patient was successful and the patient was timely attended and there was no negligence on the part of the doctor.

    After scrutiny of complete record and report of Medical Board, the undersigned reach to the conclusion that patient was timely attended and there was no negligence on the part of doctor. As per record of Adesh Medical College and Hospital, Bathinda, the patient has expired with “Postpartum Shock with ? Embolism with Cardiac Arrest”

13. As discussed above, the Medical Board consisting of Dr. Parminder Bansal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bathinda, Dr. Vireshwer Chawala, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bathinda, Dr. Monica Sharma, Medical Officer, C.H.C. Goniana, has conducted inquiry and their report is Ex. R-31. The English version of the said report reads as under :­

    “Submission of report of Medical Board regarding deceased Smt. Simarjit Kaur W/o Manpreet Singh, Village Phulo Mithi,

    In connection with the letter No. Complaint (94/2010)2K/10/683-85 dated 02-11-2010 the Medical Board constituted, after perusal of complete record, has opined that operation of patient/deceased Simarjit Kaur W/o Manpreet Singh was successful and after the operation she was shifted to Ward in satisfactory condition. As per record, Dr. Dheera attended the patient at 2.00 p.m. At 6.26 when patient felt uneasiness, the nurse Kuldeep Kaur gave the medicine to her as advised by Dr. Dheera. At 7.25 Dr. Dheera herself attended the patient and at that time the BP was unrecordable and Pulse was Feeble of the patient. The required treatment was given to the patient by Dr. Dheera and the condition of the patient started improving and her BP was 120/70 and Pulse 100 p/m, mod-volume. At 8.30 p.m. Dr. Deera referred the patient to Adesh Hospital for investigation and treatment. At the time of referral, the patient was being given Dopamine Drip and Ringer Lactate. When the patient reached Adesh Hospital, her BP, Pulse was recordable and she was suffering from repeated cardiac arrest which was resusciated repeatedly and ultimately at 12.20 a.m. the patient was declared dead. As per record the patient has died due to Pospartum Shock with ? Embolism with Cardiac Arrest.

    So, after scrutiny of complete record, the board has reached to the conclusion that the patient was attended timely and there was no negligence on the part of the doctor.”

14. Dr. Dheera Gupta, in para No. 6 of her affidavit Ex. R-45 and deposed :-

    “....It was important to mention here that Simarjeet Kaur had 1-1/4 years minor son Gurshabad at the time of admission. At that time, Gurshabad was born through Ceasearian operation and Simarjit Kaur patient was advised not to get pregnancy upto three years of the delivery through Ceasearian. But, Simarjit Kaur patient did not listen to the advise and conceived after 5/6 months.”

    This version of opposite party No. 4 gets strengthened with the Medical literature Ex. R-48 wherein it has been mentioned :-

    “....The prophylaxis includes – Avoidance of frequent child-births – a minimum interval between one birth and the next pregnancy, should be at least two years, if not three, to replenish the lost iron during child-birth process and lactation.”

    As per medical science frequent child births should be avoided and there should be gap of 2 years, if not three, between one birth and next pregnancy whereas in the present case , the Simarjit Kaur became pregnant in a very short period of about 11 months and delivered twins.

15. As discussed above, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the record placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the view that proper care and treatment was given to Simarjit Kaur. The opposite party No. 4 has done her duty as required from a doctor in her profession. She did everything which she was supposed to do. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 015 (SC) Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others wherein it has been held that :-

“...Medical negligence – When doctors perform their duties and exercise an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical science.

....Medical negligence – Medical science has conferred great benefits on mankind, but these benefits are attended by considerable risks – Every surgical operation is attended by risks – We cannot take the benefits without taking risks – Every advancement in technique is also attended by risks.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has observed that :

“According to Halsbury's Laws of England Ed. 4 Vol. 26 pages 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 (a) 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 (b) A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient.”

It has also been discussed in the aforementioned case that :

“In a celebrated and oftenly cited judgement in Bolam V. Friern Hospital Manament Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582 : (1957) 2 ALL ER 118 (Queen's Bench Division – Lord Justice McNair 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 line 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 ibid 971, para 48). Lord justice McNair also observed : Before I turn 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 doing some act which a reasonable man in the circumstances would not do; and if that failure or 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 whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Claphm 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 negligence. It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.”

16. As per Consumer Protection Act and Medical Profession by M.K Balachandran – Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India – in association with – Indian Institute of Public Administration New Delhi, the Duties of a doctor are :-

Doctors generally have certain duties towards their patients. Some of the important duties are :

: to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and a reasonable degree of care;

: to exercise reasonable care in deciding whether to undertake the case and also in deciding what treatment to give and how to administer that treatment;

: to extent his service with due expertise for protecting the life of the patient and to stabilize his condition in emergency situation;

: to attend to his patient when required and not to withdraw his services without giving him sufficient notice;

: to study symptoms and complaint of the patient carefully and to administer standard treatment;

: to carry out necessary investigations through appropriate laboratory tests wherever required to arrive at a proper diagnosis;

: to advise and assist the patient to get a second opinion and call a specialist if necessary;

: to obtain informed consent from the patient for procedures with inherent risk of life.

: to take appropriate precautionary measures before administering injections and medicines and to meet emergency situations;

: to inform the patient or his relatives the relevant facts about his illness;

: to keep secret the confidential information received from the patient in the course of his professional engagement;

: to notify the appropriate authorities of dangerous and communicable disease;

19. The complainants have utterly failed to prove by producing any expert evidence that the treatment provided by opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 was not as per medical line/ethics. The opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 have acted in accordance with practice as accepted proper by responsible medical body skilled in that particular art while treating the complainant. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical professional of that day, he/she cannot be held liable for negligence. Board is of the opinion that there is no negligence on the part of opposite party No. 4 in performing the operation as well in the treatment given to patient Simarjit Kaur. The record produced on file shows that opposite party No. 4 conducted caesarean operation on Simarjit Kaur and two live babies were extracted from her belly, thereafter she was shifted in the ward which itself rules out any complication. At that time she was fully conscious and all the vital signs were within normal limits. Simarjit Kaur felt some uneasiness at about 6.25 p.m. and the medicine was given by nurse on duty, as advised by opposite party no. 4 on phone. She was normal at 8.00 p.m. Since the relatives of the patient could not arrange blood upto 8.20 p.m. and no Radiologist was available, to know the reason for shock, Simarjit Kaur was referred to Adesh Hospital, Bathinda by opposite party No. 4 at 8.30 p.m. Simarjit Kaur was admitted in Adesh Hospital at 9.30 p.m. on 27-8-2010 in emergency where she was given treatment but unfortunately, she died at 12.20 a.m. on 28-8-2010 due to “Postpartium Shock with ? Embolism with Cardiac arrest” and not due to any complication of the operation. Hence, this Forum concludes that opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 were not negligent in any manner. Therefore, no deficiency in service is proved against the opposite parties. Thus, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned.

Pronounced

26-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President

(Amarjeet Paul) Member

 

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member