NIVEDITA SINGH Vs. ASHA BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Factual matrix are that petitioner Nivedita Singh was admitted to Ghazipur District Women Hospital on 26th august, 2004 in connection with delivery due to her. She delivered a child without there being any complication in process of delivery. As usual, a small cut in the delivery canal was made by respondent doctors to facilitate smooth delivery of child. Since delivery followed bleeding from delivery canal, Doctors attending her adopted process of lithotomy, which is said to be routine procedure of a delivery case. Petitioner has a strong grievance against process adopted by treating Doctor when her legs were hung higher to level of her body, causing impediment in normal flow of blood towards toes of her feet. She alleged that as a consequence first and second toes of her right foot got blackened and developed gangrene. Be that as it may, she was discharged from respondent hospital on 1st November, 2004, pursuant to which she was taken and admitted to Shail Nursing Home at Varanasi. However, despite treatment she could not get respite and then she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 18th September, 2004, where she was suggested amputation of two toes. She also took consultation at Ganga Ram Hospital and eventually was admitted in Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital where first and second toes of her right feet were amputated, for which her parents had to incur a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs over her treatment. Alleging deficiency on part of respondent Doctors, nurses and hospital as also Insurance Company, a complaint was filed with District Forum.

(2.) Attributions so made were negated by respondents disowning medical negligence on their part or any deficiency in service. Taking refuge behind discharge note, which did not allegedly show sign of her toes having suffered injury, their defence was that she had injury in her toes prior to her being taken to hospital for delivery. Opinion of Dr. J. P. Pandey, who was summoned by hospital, too was referred to. District Forum analyzing evidence accepted defence of respondents and consequently dismissed complaint. State Commission too for want of credible evidence about petitioner having suffered gangrene in toes following lithotomy adopted by respondents, having affirmed finding of District Forum, dismissed appeal.

(3.) Focal issue that was raised by petitioner in complaint was that when bleeding following delivery of child could not be arrested, her feet were hung in air and she was kept in that position for a longer period and hence there was no supply of blood to feet and eventually toes were rendered deficient and she developed gangrene. As has been noticed above, referring to opinion of Dr. J. P. Pandey and also regard being had to evidences, State Commission held that injury in toes was not fall out of delivery process. Though after discharge from respondent hospital on 1st of November, 2004 petitioner was treated in Shail Nursing Home, Varanasi, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, Ganga Ram Hospital and also Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital, where first and second toes of her right feet were amputated, none of the Doctors attending her in these hospitals ever expressed opinion about her toes having developed gangrene as a fall out of delivery process that was carried out in respondent hospital. Though a certificate issued by Dr. Suresh Kumar on 4th November, 2004 pressed into service on behalf of petitioner who was of the view that since petitioner was kept for two hours in lithotomy position, that might have developed gangrene. State Commission, however, did not give credence to certificate issued by Dr. Suresh Kumar for the reasons that certificate in question was issued by the Doctor after 1 months of amputation of her toes and that apart, evidences did not show that Dr. Suresh Kumar had accompanied Dr. M. L. Sharma who performed amputation of toes of petitioner.