SURENDRABHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners of this petition are Doctor and Nurse respectively, who have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No. C.R No. I 119 of 2009 registered with the Songadh Police Station, District: Tapi, at Vyara under Section 304 A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.4 Rekhaben, daughter of Mohanbhai Shantilal Gamit sister of deceased Sunita registered the aforesaid First Information Report on 01.12.2009.

(2.) According to the complainant, who is respondent No.4 herein, her sister Sunita was married to one Rupesh Rupsingh Gamit. She conceived from the marriage. On 13.11.2009, according to the complainant, her sister Sunita complained of labour pains, and therefore, her father and Rupesh called for an 108 ambulance. At 4 O'clock in the evening, she along with her parents and one Deepikaben went to the Songadh Government Dispensary for the delivery of the child of Sunitaben. According to the complainant at six in the evening, Sunita delivered a normal baby. It is a case of the complainant that, after the post delivery care she found that it was a case of Intra Uterine Inverse inasmuch as the uterus came out. The complainant's case is that, it was the staff nurse who was responsible for this condition. The complaint further goes to recite that the doctor concerned at the Songadh Government Hospital called for an ambulance and referred Sunitaben to the Government Bardoli Hospital, where Sunitaben was administered intravenous drugs and subsequently shifted to the Civil Hospital at Surat. The complainant further states that the doctors at Surat opined that there were slim chances of her survival. Sunita died soon thereafter.

(3.) Ms Yashodhara Pandya, learned advocate for Mr. Rajesh K Shah for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the doctor and the nurse cannot be held responsible for medical negligence for the death of respondent No.4 original complainant's sister. It is the contention of the learned advocate that they were in no manner responsible for the incident of, what is in medical terms known as "Intra Uterine Inversion" as in the history that was recorded on admission of the patient it was found that two midwives Chhagniben and Vestiben, who had in order to facilitate delivery of a normal child had applied "fundal pressure" on the patient's stomach with oil massage. Having failed to induce delivery, the patient was shifted to the hospital under the care of the applicant doctor and the nurse respectively. According to the medical condition then, it was found that the patient had been administered massage with the oil and the head of the unborn child was in the Cervical Canal in the peronium. In short, it was the case of the applicantpetitioner before this court, that the doctor and the nurse respectively are in no way responsible for what is in medical terms called Intra Uterine Inversion and it was only because of the untrained midwives who had applied and massaged oil to induce delivery that the consequential "fundal pressure" had caused such a medical condition.