P VENKATA LAKSHMI Vs. Y SAVITHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts as revealed in the complaint are these as briefly narrated.1. The complainant gave birth to a normal child in her first delivery in March, 1988. After a gap of four years she conceived again but unfortunately she had a missed abortion in February, 1992. She conceived in August, 1992 a third time. She consulted Dr. I. Nirmala Reddy, Gynaecologist and Obstetrician, her family doctor and on her advice she had been taking harmons injections from 25.9.1992 to avoid miscarriage. She had rescanned which showed normal single viable foetal node with age of 8-9 weeks. Again on 24.11.1992 she had another ultrasound scan as well as blood, urine etc. , tested and everything found normal. On the advice of the family doctor she had one more ultrasound scan fourth time which revealed that the weight of the foetus was good. As her family doctor was not having nursing home she referred the complainant to the first opposite party who is having a nursing home and accordingly she was regularly consulting the first opposite party since 5.4.1993.

(2.) Whileso from 15.5.1993 onwards she was feeling inconvenience i. e. , 7 days before the expected date of delivery i. e. , 22.5.1993. As 16.5.1993 happened to be Sunday and the first opposite party nursing home will be closed for consultation she consulted Dr. I. Nirmala Reddy who told her that cervix was opened and dilatation started and she may develop labour pains any time and deliver the baby. Even for her first child she did not get labour pains and it was a case of induction and normal delivery. She waited the whole day and on 17.5.1993 she approached the first opposite party and explained to her about the history of the first delivery and requested her whether she would arrange for induction. But she refused to check-up and asked her to wait till the due date. Accordingly she waited up to 22.5.1993 and told her that she was having greenish discharge for the last 3 days and there were no labour pains. Thereupon the first opposite party had conducted 'per Vaginum' Test at 12.45 p. m. and told her that the baby was passing motion inside the womb and advised her for immediate admission. She prescribed 'none-stress Test' (NST ). In spite of treatment the vaginal discharge continued. On 23.5.1993 the first opposite party came for rounds and after enquiring about the problem she instructed her assistants to arrange for induction on 24.5.1993 at 6.00 a. m. On 24.5.1993 she was given injections for labour pains and the first opposite party removed a good quantity of motion passed by the baby into a tray and showed it to her husband and she suggested caesarean section. One sister in the hospital arranged the belt very casually and started the Contraction Stress Test (CST ). But as the report was not coming properly it was repeated. The first opposite party after perusing the CST report advised her assistants to give Oxygen to her as foetal heart beating was going down. The complainant was getting second stage labour pains and could not deliver the child as the size of the baby was big. Then the first opposite party asked one of her sisters to press the complainant's abdomen and push the baby out. When the sister did accordingly the doctor pulled the baby out by using forceps which made her almost unconscious. The baby was delivered but did not cry. The baby had birth asphyxia due to swallowing fluids and motion and due to the delay and crude method of delivery adopted by the doctor and her assistants. They suctioned the fluids and motion swallowed by the baby and gave Oxygen (intro-02) and warmed up the baby. The baby started crying slowly after 10 minutes. When the doctor knew that the baby was passing motion in the womb she could have reasonably anticipated the problem and should have called the paediatrician to be present at the time of delivery. But it was not done. It was at 10.00 a. m. on 24.5.1993 i. e. , after 45 minutes the paediatrician came and examined the baby and told her to start feeding from 1.30 p. m. The first opposite party came to her room around 10.00 p. m. during her rounds and told her that the baby was alright. But throughout that night the baby did not sleep and she was crying and over sweating. The second opposite party also visited on 25.5.1993 at 10.00 a. m. and stated that the condition of the baby was good. But the first opposite party who visited later said that there was some breathing problem with the baby which will subside as the overall condition of the baby was good. Within two hours thereafter the baby started crying and suddenly developed convulsions. The complainant informed the duty doctor immediately. The duty doctor could not contract the second opposite party till 2.00 p. m. but told them that the second opposite party asked him to take the baby to Basant Sahney Hospital over telephone. Her husband came within 15 minutes and he along with her mother took the baby to Basant Sahney Hospital. Whereupon the doctors at the hospital told them that they were already informed about the shifting of the baby on 24.5.1993 itself and accordingly admitted the baby in "neo-natal Intensive Care Unit" as an emergency case. The consultant doctor said that the condition of the baby was very bad and nothing could be said for the next 48 hours. The complainant went there on 27.5.1993. The first opposite party did not bother to examine even the sutures nor suggested any further treatment but sent message that the (sic.) was there on 27.3.1993 and 28.3.1993 feeding the baby whenever instructed. Dr. Indrasekhara Rao, Neonatalogist told her that the baby was fast recovering. But on 28.5.1993 at 4.00 p. m. when the baby was given to her for feeding after taking 2 or 3 drops of milk the baby started having 'cyanosis' (baby colour turned to blue ). Immediately Oxygen was given to the baby. The baby was kept in Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit continuously from 25.5.1993 to 8.6.1993. The complications like (1) Bilateral per ventricular haemorrhage (Brain), (2) Cerebral Edema (Brain), (3) Blood infection (Staphylococcus Aureas grown in culture), (4) Pneumonitis and (5) Jaundice, developed due to negligence of the doctors at Swapna Nursing Home, the third opposite party. Ultimately the baby was discharged on 11.6.1993 from Basant Sahney Hospital after treatment.

(3.) The first opposite party should have taken a decision for induction when she noticed that the baby was passing motion in the womb. She has also failed to test the heart beat of the baby till 24.5.1993 by which time heart beat went down. She also failed to opt for caesarean section on 24.5.1993 even after doing P. V. Test at 7.15 a. m. Instead of conducting caesarean she instructed the sisters to press her abdomen for pushing the baby out, adopted a crude method. The first opposite party failed to call the paediatrician to be present at the time of delivery and failed to advise her to shift the baby to the Neo-natal Intensive Care unit. Even the second opposite party who knew the condition of the baby that it was serious failed to take proper action in time. Failure to furnish all relevant details of the case to Basant Sahney Hospital also complicated the condition of the baby. In view of the weight of the baby i. e. , 3.8 kg. which is much above the average of Indian babies ceasarean should have been opted. The second opposite party informed her on 25.5.1993 at about 10.30 a. m. that the baby was perfect in all respects. But she developed convulsions within two hours thereafter which goes to show the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.