DEEPAK GUPTA & ANR Vs. N D RAINA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case of alleged professional negligence against OP No. 1 who runs a Private Clinic in Gandhi Nagar locality of Jammu city as Gynecologist and obstetrician since the year 1984. The allegations against her are that by treating complainant No. 2 during her pregnancy in a casual and negligent manner, unborn child in the womb lost his life as well as, the unwanted removal of the uterus of complainant no. 2 was done and harm was caused to her bladder during the operation which was done in an unprofessional manner. The tortitious act done by OP No. 1 has rendered complainant No. 2 incapable of bearing any child throughout her life. The brief facts of the case are that complainant No. 2 came into family way in the month of November and December, 2002. On 2.12.2002, she approached O. P No. l for professional advice and treatment. OP No. 1 examined her in her Private Nursing Home situated in 191/AD, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu (herein after to be referred to as Nursing Home). OP No. 1 advised ultrasonography and the same was got done on 4.12.2002 at Apollo Diagnostic Centre 34 A/C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Complainant No. 2 again visited OP No. 1 on 19.12.2002 and she advised her to visit again on 8.1.2003 and 12.1.2003. On 12.1.2003, again ultrasonography was advised along with blood and urine tests which were got done at Friends X -Ray, ECG Clinical Lab and Ultrasound Satwari Chowk, Jammu by Dr. Nariner Sharma (MD). For confirmatory value those very tests were also got conducted at S. K Diagnostic Clinical Laboratory, 191A/D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu which laboratory was owned and run by O. P No. 1. The result of the tests showed that the pregnancy was normal. On 8.3.2003, OP No. 1 advised Ultras Sonography which was got done at JKCT Scan and Research Centre, 1A, A/C Green Belt Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and in the report it was stated that it was normal pregnancy of 19 -20 weeks gestation with placenta previa and dilated cervical blood vessel. Again on 13.3.2003, OP No. l checked complainant No. 2 and opined that pregnancy was normal. Complainant No. l is the husband of complainant No. 2 who used to accompany his wife for regular check -ups but OP No. 1 never allowed him to enter her premises to meet his wife during check -up/examination. He was in this manner always deprived to get information regarding the conditions of his wife and the un -born child. On 9.4.2003, the check -up was conducted and no bleeding was seen and it was assured that everything would go in a normal way. On 13.4.2003, bleeding from vagina started to complainant No. 2 and she was rushed by complainant No. 1 to the Nursing Home of OP No. l, where she was kept admitted till 14.4.2003 (11.00 a. m. ). She was discharged after recording the following facts in the prescription "Pregnosis of the case explained risk factor to mother and factors explained. Advised to arrange for blood donors. " Despite all the above stated findings recorded in the prescription nothing was explained or advised to complainant No. l or to complainant No. 2. On the contrary, OP No. l told complainant No. 2 that she could do normal house -hold chores but not heavy work, loosing complete sight of the fact that the patient with placenta previa with bleeding is to be advised complete bed rest and not even to go to bathroom as the slightest bleeding could adversely affect the foetus which may endanger both child or the mother. Without complainant No. 2's complete recovery, OP No. 1 discharged her from the nursing home despite the presence of "placenta previa with bleeding'. OP No. 1 had failed in her duty to refer complainant No. 2 to Government Medical Hospital; Jammu because on 13.4.2003, the patient had bled for one hour completely thus failedto save the life of unborn child.

(2.) DURING the intervening night of 16/17th April 2003, complainant No. 2 started bleeding at about 2.30 a. m. and she was rushed to the nursing home of OP No. 1. After slight recovery, OP No. l told complainant No. l to take complainant No. 2 homedespite the fact that the H. B of -complainant No. 2 was recorded 9.8 gms even after transfusion of one unit of blood. Complainant No. l did not agree to take complainant No. 2 home on 19.4.2003 as the pregnancy was not over but OP. No. l forcibly discharged complainant No. 2 on 20.4.2003 though she had not completely recovered. OP No. l had no Blood Bank facility and complainant No. 1 himself had arranged blood from a donor which was transfused to complainant No. 2. The donor was one Jagjit Singh. Complainant No. 2 had been asked by OP No. l to come again on 3.5.2003 i. e. after a period of more than 15 days despite the fact that she had earlier suffered profuse bleeding. Being a professional expert of requisite knowledge OP No. l herein should have called her earlier and kept her under close and constant observation.

(3.) DURING the intervening night of 23/24th April, 2003, complainant No. 2 again suffered bleeding and complainant No. l immediately rushed her to the Nursing Home of OP No. l and she was informed about the condition at 2.30 a. m. (night). OP No. l being aware of the complications of complainant Nb. 2 did not come up for check -up till 7:00 a. m. in the morning and left complainant No. 2 to be cared by para -medical staff. On 24.4.2003 at 7:00 a. m. OP No. 1 told complainant No. l to arrange two donors for donating blood and complainant No. 2 was to be operated upon at 8.00 a. m. as the operation had become very necessary and was to be done immediately in order to save the unborn child who according to OP No. 1 was still alive. Consent of complainant No. l and complainant No. 2 was sought. Complainant No. 1 was not told by OP No. 1 that there was no blood blank facility in the nursing home and the blood would have to be arranged from outside and in these circumstances the best course would have been to shift complainant to Government Medical College, Jammu, where good consultation/diagnosis, equipments, and proper blood Bank facilities etc. were available. OP No. l in order to mint money by hook and crook did not care neither for the life of complainant No. 2 nor for the life of un -born child or both. During the operation, complaint No. l and other family members were told that the child was alive and is breathing but the uterus of complainant No. 2 had to be removed. The consent of complainant No. 1 for performing the immediate operation was taken and in an emergency manner the operation was performed by OP No. 1. OP No. 1 informed complainant No. 1 that uterus had to be removed and he should give immediate consent because complainant No. 2 was on the operation table. In this manner; complainant No. l was forced to give his consent and also was not given any time to ponder over the matter. Complainant No. 2 was discharged on 4.5.2003. Later the complainants came to know that while the operation was being performed on complainant No. 2, OP No. l had damaged Urinary bladder by puncturing into it and for this particular treatment the complainants consulted Urologist namely, Dr. C. L. Gupta 3 D/B, IInd Extension Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and the tests were got conducted at Hemal Diagnostic Centre, 6 D/C Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The complainants also approached one Dr. A. Kumar at Medicare Nursing Home of 39B/ C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu on 15.5.2003. The other consultations were also done which are detailed in the complaint. It is further alleged that nursing home has not been registered and there were no facilities of getting blood from the blood bank inside the nursing home and thus above stated negligent act resulted in the death of female child of the complainants and they got deprived of carrying any more child in future The complainants at present have one male child and had decided to have three children which dream now has become impossible.