DAUDA KHAN Vs. ISPAT GENERAL HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Justice R.K. Patra, President -Attributing medical negligence this complaint has been filed. The sum and substance of the allegation is that Saida Begum @ Khatoon, wife of the complainant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the patient) was admitted in the Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela for delivery and because of the negligence of the doctors -opposite parties 2 and 3, her uterus was ruptured ultimately leading to her death.

(2.) THE case as made out in the complaint is that the patient was admitted in the Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela on 12.10.1992 on payment of Rupees 600 as fees for delivery. The treating doctor prescribed for administration of saline which was done. The staff nurse administered half unused saline. When the patient complained of pain, her attending mother requested the opposite party No. 2 -doctor to attend to her but she did not pay any heed. She suffered severely for about 15 minutes as a result of which the uterus was ruptured. Ultimately, the doctor and nurse shifted the patient to the labour room but there also none attended to her. After some time opposite party No. 3 -doctor took charge of the operation of the deceased. She was operated upon and a stillborn baby was removed from the uterus. Removal of uterus was also done. Ultimately she could not survive. Rupture of the uterus and its removal were due to the negligence of the attending doctors.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 -Dr. S. Khare has filed affidavit asserting that there was no deficiency in service by the attending doctor in treating the patient. Opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed a joint reply denying the allegation. Their common case is that the patient reported at the hospital for ante natal checkup on 12.10.1992. Although the expected date of delivery was 6.10.1992 there was no sign of labour. The doctor on duty after examination, recommended for admission in the hospital for further observation, checkup and treatment. It was her third conception, the first being a caesarean section at Cuttack and the second a normal delivery. After her admission on 12.10.1992 at about 5.50 p.m. the doctor examined her condition and observed as follows: