SHAKUNTALA BANALE Vs. ANITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of this Revision Petition are these. The patient, Anita W/o Dr. Veeresh from Bellary was under follow up during pregnancy for antenatal treatment (ANC). On 13.11.2002, she got admitted in the Banale Hospital i.e. OP-2 Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala Banale. On next day, patient started labour pain, which was attended by two ayurvedic doctors, the OP did not come and examine her, despite being present in the hospital. Thus, painful delivery took place on 14.11.2002. Due to carelessness of OP, the baby suffered foetal distress; the OP did not take proper care after delivery also. The baby did not cry immediately after birth, therefore, the baby was shifted to Sangameshwar Hospital by the Complainant's husband. There, it was diagnosed as birth asphyxia and septicemia, which was treated and then baby was discharged on 28.11.2002, further follow-up, was maintained. Thereafter, on 17.01.2003, a Pediatrician-Dr. Gachimani was consulted as the baby was having fever and excessive crying. The baby was under treatment till 07.04.2003. Baby was also taken to the OP doctor, who, after investigation told that baby was having neurological deficit. Accordingly, she referred the child to St. John's Hospital (SJH) at Bangalore. Dr. Swarna Rekha at St. John's Hospital advised treatment by occupational physiotherapy and speech therapy. Thereafter, the baby was under the consultation at Spastic Society of Karnataka from 28.01.2005 to till date for Speech Therapy. On 26.05.2006, baby was shown to Dr. Rajendra Dugani at Hospet, who suspected nevus in the brain, but it was ruled out by M.R.I test on 14.03.2007. The chromosome screening was also performed at St. John's Hospital, it was normal, therefore, complainant alleged that, on the basis of clinical correlation and MRI findings there should be brain injury because of birth asphyxia of his child. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Gulbarga. Initially the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the basis of limitation, but it was remanded back by the State Commission on 29.10.2009.

(2.) Thereafter, the District Forum, on 25.11.2010 partly allowed the complaint and held:-

(3.) Challenging the said District Forum's order the complainant and OP preferred the two separate first appeals before State Commission. The Appeal No. 2562/2008 filed by the complainant was partly allowed whereas the Appeal No. 1959/2008 filed by the OP was dismissed by the State Commission and passed the following order:-