RAVINDRA KULKARNI Vs. BALASAHEB GANGARAM GAVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE may briefly state that the District Forum has chosen to rely on the opinion of Dr. Bade and the story narrated by the complainant and his relation, which was to the effect that the deceased was not attended to in time although she was bleeding profusely from uterus and was complaining of abdominal pain all along from 3. 30 p. m. to 4. 30 p. m. on 28-12-92. The District Forum totally ignored the affidavit of the co-patient Smt. Lalabai Ramchandra Tapkir on the ground that her affidavit was a concocted document and did not bear the signature. The District Forum also refused to believe the story of the appellant that at the time of delivery, the appellant was busy in attending the emergency case of curetting of one Mrs. Sathe. The same was not mentioned in the F. I. R. of the police and post mortem report. The same was also not borne out from the case papers. The District Forum laid emphasis on the finding that the uterus was found to be flabby containing large clots of blood indicating that there was profuse bleeding, which resulted in the death of Charulata. Some facts are also narrated to show callousness on the appellant in attending Charulata. This therefore makes imperative on us to probe through the facts and the evidence on record.

(2.) TO narrate few facts, we find that Charulata was under the treatment for future pregnancy with the appellant. She was registered as a patient with the appellant on 23-6-92 in the Kulkarni Hospital at Pune. She was under the advise and consultation of the appellant and on 14-12-92, the appellant advised ultra-sonography. During the sonography it was certified that the proposed delivery was to be with breech presentation. On 28-12-92, Charulata complained of pain which indicated the forthcoming delivery and therefore, she was admitted to the hospital in the morning and was given injection for promoting labour pains. The appellant was assisted by his wife Dr. Smita Kulkarni, M. D. (Anesthetia) and Nurse Mrs. Jagdale. When the delivery pains started, Dr. Kulkarni came to be busy with a case of urgent curetting (evacuation for incomplete abortion with bleeding) of Mrs. Sathe in the adjoining operation theatre. The delivery of Charulata went of uneventful and Dr. Smita Kulkarni (wife of the appellant) gave sutures to the perineum and the sanitary towels were placed to absorb the blood. Charulata was removed to semi-private room in the same hospital. Dr. Kulkarni went on as usual for examining remaining patients and Dr. Smita Kulkarni looked after Charulata till 1. 00 p. m. and left for her appointment to Anand Hospital. The nurse Mrs. Jagdale went after the duty at 12. 30 noon upto 4. 00 p. m. during which time another nurse Mrs. Londhe was attending Charulata. Charulata was accompanied by her sister Mrs. Aruna Deshmukh and mother Savitribai as there was haemorrhage with abdominal trauma during the said period and more particularly after 2. 30 p. m. Mrs. Londhe was informed to contact the appellant since 3. 30 p. m. onwards. However, nurse Mrs. Londhe did not take any steps to contact the appellant. Only on telephone she was advised to give injection of Voveran. However, when Mrs. Jagdale nurse appeared, she found that the condition of Charulata was precarious because of serious chest pain with profused perspiration. Thereafter appellant came with Paediatrician Mr. Mankikar and local physician Dr. Khade and provided all sorts of treatment suspecting the situation to be Disseminated Intavascular Coagulation (hereinafter referred as DIC ). Despite their efforts for resuscitation and giving oxygen 100%, Charulata did not revive and met her clinical death at about 8. 15 p. m.

(3.) THE District Forum as indicated above, refused to accede to the defence made out by the appellant about the sudden cardiac arrest on account of massive embolism and chose to rely on the story canvassed by the complainant. Here we find that the appellant supported his say about the sudden development on account of chest pain and perspiration. The affidavits of Dr. Laxman Govindram Pherwani, Dr. A. V. Umranikar, Dr. Pritam P. Phatnani and Dr. Smita Kulkarni have been relied upon by the appellant. We held that all these affidavits present an interesting reading in this matter. First of all, we may deal with the affidavit of Lalabai Tapkir. It has been treated as a bogus affidavit by the District Forum. We feel that such a conclusion is not at all warranted. The observation of the District Forum that it did not bear the signature of Mrs. Tapkir, does not at all seem to be correct. We find that the said affidavit bears the small signature of Tapkir and that the same has been notarized. In order to counter this observation, Lalabai Tapkir has filed another affidavit in which she has stated that the signature on the affidavit rejected by the District Forum is her signature although it is small in size. On the original affidavit we find that it bears the same signature as on the other affidavit. The affidavit of Lalabai Tapkir assumes importance since she has stated that she was admitted to the same hospital on 14-12-92 for removing her womb, possibly this was a family planning operation. She was on Cot No. 10 after the family planning operation, whereas Charulata was on Cot No. 11. Charulata delivered a female child. Charulata had taken food. In the afternoon she complained of pain in the chest and sister attended on her for examination of blood pressure. Sister rushed out and called the doctor, prior to that Dr. Kulkarni had examined her and found her alright in conversation with her. She was found to be replying to the question put by the doctor. She had taken tea and biscuits and Dr. Mankikar also examined her. She does not speak of profuse bleeding through uterus of Charulata. Now this affidavit has not been challenged in the cross-examination, because Lalabai Tapkir was not called for cross-examination. From the affidavit of Lalabai, one can easily gather that Charulata had no delivery problem when she was removed to Cot No. 11. There is no reference of bleeding. Unfortunately, only on the point of absence of signature, the District Forum rejected the same. On close scrutiny we find that there is a small signature of Lalabai, which has been supported in her next affidavit, wherein also we find a small signature similar to one on the affidavit dated 18-6-95.