PRABHA G NAIR Vs. MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A pregnant woman was taken to hospital in connection with delivery and she died in the hospital. The husband gave a complaint to the police stating that his wife died because of the negligent act of the doctor in applying vacuum extractor, forceps and carrying out episiotomy rashly, negligently and recklessly as a result of which the uterus of the woman sustained fatal injury. On the basis of the complaint of the husband, a crime was registered against the doctor alleging the commission of the offence under S.304 - A of the Indian Penal Code. After conducting investigation and obtaining expert opinion, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted a final report referring the crime as mistake of fact.

(2.) Husband thereafter filed a complaint in Court alleging that his wife died because of the negligence of the doctor. The woman died as a result of rupture of uterus on the back. After conducting enquiry, the Court took the case on file. This petition is filed by the doctor for quashing the proceedings in the case against her in which the allegation is that she committed the offence punishable under S.304 - A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, the doctor says that the wife of the 1st respondent died because of rupture of uterus on the back and that the same could not be ordinarily detected on clinical examination by ultra scan. According to the petitioner, the death was caused due to complication following rupture of gravial uterus and that can be due to complication of delivery. The submission is that in the normal course of delivery rupture of gravial uterus can happen, if the size of the body and the uterus is disproportionate and such an injury can be caused even if the doctor is careful.

(3.) The doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body, was examined during the enquiry conducted by the Court and his deposition is Annexure - IV. He was working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine in Medical College, Alappuzha. The opinion as to the cause of death given by the Doctor was that death was due to complication following rupture of gravial uterus. According to the 1st respondent, he told the petitioner that if there was any complication in delivery he would take his wife to the Medical College Hospital and then the doctor told him that there was no need for taking his wife to Medical College Hospital and that some German medicine was being administered to her. Negligence is attributed to the doctor by saying that scanning was done and that if there was rupture of uterus that could be detected by doing scanning. The doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, said when he was examined in Court that by doing the post mortem examination alone he could not say whether the doctor was negligent or not. Assistant Professor of Radio Diagnosis was also examined in Court and he said that Injury No. 3 shown in the post mortem certificate could be found out by doing scanning. According to him, bleeding also could be found out by doing scanning. It is on the basis of the above statements made by the doctors that the 1st respondent would say that the petitioner was negligent in attending to the delivery of the wife of the 1st respondent. The doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, did not say that the doctor was negligent. What he said was that on doing post mortem examination one cannot say whether the doctor was negligent or not.