R P BHOLA Vs. V K MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the complainant is that Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola, who was wife of complainant No. l Dr. R.P. Bhola and mother of complainant Nos. 2 to 4, had pain in the abdomen on 5.8.1999. Dr. R.P. Bhola and his late wife Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola consulted OP-1 Dr. V.K. Mehta at his clinic OP-5 and they were informed that Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola had stones in the gal bladder. Dr. V.K. Mehta, without taking ultrasound of abdomen of Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola came to the conclusion that she had stones in the gal bladder. This conclusion was arrived at in a great haste. It has been contended that Dr. V.K. Mehta assured and allured them that OPs 5 and 6 were duly recognised and registered with Government authorities and that the operation theatre of OP-5 was well equipped with all necessary equipments and life saving methods required in case of emergency. He was also informed that the operation would hardly take half an hour and there will be hardly one or two cuts in the body as is the case in laproscopic operations. Dr. V.K. Mehta demanded an amount of Rs. 20,000 as advance payment, which was arranged by Dr. R.P. Bhola and was given to Dr. V.K. Mehta. However, no receipt was issued on the pretext that the accountant had left and Dr. V.K. Mehta assured that the receipt would be issued on 6.8.2000.

(2.) On 6.8.1999 Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola entertained certain doubts and was to get the operation postponed but OPs 1 to 4 somehow assured and allured Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola and took her to the operation theatre. She was not permitted to given even a second thought. The opposite parties did not even wait to take consent of Dr. R.P. Bhola or consent of Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola for operation. Dr. Bhola went to the clinic OP-5 as Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola had not returned and was shocked to know that the OPs 1 to 4 were conducting laproscopic operation on her. Dr. R.P. Bhola noticed Dr. V.K. Mehta coming out of operation theatre two or three times and he telephoned various persons including agency who supplied oxygen which shows the non-availability of life saving items like oxygen in the operation theatre. The operation took considerable time and at about 12.00 noon OPs 1 to 4 came out of the operation theatre and informed Dr. R.P. Bhola that Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola had expired during the operation. Dr. V.K. Mehta, in great haste took the dead body of late Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola in his car and threw it at the place of the complainant. No papers/documents were given by the opposite parties to the complainants in respect of the operation. In fact, no document was prepared prior to the operation or during the operation. After the cremation and completion of necessary rituals Dr. R.P. Bhola met Dr. V.K. Mehta and was shocked to know that the opposite parties had not prepared any document nor had kept any record and informed him that the records would be got prepared from OP-2 Dr. M.S. Lathar. On 18.8.1999 OPs delivered a few papers to the complainants which appeared to be cooked up, concocted and manipulated to save the skin of the opposite parties. The documents handed over to the complainants did not bear the signatures of OP-3 Dr. Neeraj Aggarwal and OP-4 Dr. S.K. Chhabra, who had conducted the operation. All the papers were signed by Dr. V.K. Mehta alone. According to the complainants, pre and post operation conduct of the opposite parties confirmed that there was negligence in the operation of Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola, which resulted in her untimely death.

(3.) The complainant had filed complaint with the police and thereafter a complaint case was filed against OPs 1 to 4 in the Court of A.C.M.M., Patiala House, New Delhi under Sections 304, 120, 165, 468, 470 and 471 of IPC. It is alleged that the operation was conducted without fulfilling the requisite formalities, without carrying out requisite and proper tests or ultrasound and no proper anaesthetic tests were done by competent Anaesthetist which should have been done before operation is conducted. The cause of death was stated to be cardiac arrest with respiratory failure but no specialist was called to deal with cardiac arrest and respiratory failure. According to the complainants, there was no cardiac arrest and respiratory failure, as the deceased has no sign of any such problem. It is further stated by the complainants that the OPs injected a drenaline in the heart to revive it which process has been banned since long and long research has proved that the patient should be taken on ventilator or defibrillator in such conditions which was not tried in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola. It is also pointed out that the monitor does not go off instantly as alleged by the opposite parties, but continues for 3-4 minutes and during this period the patient could be revived. Therefore, according to the complainants Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola died due to lack of experience and negligence of the opposite parties as they failed to carry out the operation properly. It is also stated that certain drugs like Lasix, Deriphyline and Dexa Methasone were given but there was no explanation as to why they were given and what was their effect. It is specifically contended that no post-mortem was advised by the OPs and this fact has been written in the operation notes afterwards.