DINESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. VINITA MAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Karoli dated 18.11.2009 by which it dismissed the complaint. Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant's wife was admitted to Vinita Nursing Home, Hindaun city which is run by Dr. Vinita Makkar. The complainant's wife was admitted on 4.2.1996 at 6.00 p.m. and she delivered a male child at 9.15 p.m. after ten minutes of delivery she was shifted to general ward. At that time she was profusely bleeding and she complained of nausea. The complainant called the doctor and she checked the pulse of his wife and assured the complainant that everything was O.K. and bleeding after delivery was normal. After that Dr. Vinita retired to her residence at the first floor of the Nursing Home but condition of the complainant's wife was getting worse and doctor was informed of her condition but she did not turned up and finally at 11.00 p.m. the doctor came to see her and by that time the condition of complainant's wife had been worsened. She was profusely bleeding, her BP was not measurable and she had a very thin pulse. At 11.15 p.m. Dr. Vinita referred the patient to Government Hospital, Bharatpur and prepared a refer slip Anx. 1 diagnosing that patient was suffering from post partum haemorrhage (hereinafter referred as 'PPH'). When the patient was being taken to Bharatpur Hospital in a jeep and she died on the way.

(2.) THE complainant lodged a First Information Report with the police for medical negligence against the doctor but the police after investigation submitted a final report before the concerned Magistrate and a protest petition lodged by the complainant was also dismissed by the concerned Magistrate against which a revision petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court was also dismissed summarily.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that Dr. Vinita has been negligent in discharging her duties as a doctor and immediately after delivery she shifted the patient to the general ward and retired to her residence at first floor and did not turn up to attend the patient after repeated requests though she was informed of the heavy bleeding. He further argued that after the FIR was lodged, Dr. Vinita had tried to manipulate the refer slip and admission ticket. In the refer slip at 11.15 p.m. she has recorded the BP as 100 while at 11.00 p.m. in the admission card she has recorded the BP as 60 and why did she not referred the patient to Bharatpur till 11.50 p.m. He also argued that in the admission card she has wrongly mentioned that she was continuously monitoring the patient after delivery. The learned Counsel further submits that the learned DCF has based its findings on the result of criminal case but he argues that it is the settled law that findings given by the criminal Court cannot be binding on the civil Courts. He has also criticised the judgment of the learned DCF on the ground that two yard sticks have been applied in appreciating the evidence of both the parties.