CHITTARANJAN HALDER Vs. M/S DOLPHIN NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Sh.Chittaranjan Halder (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which had dismissed his complaint of medical negligence against the opposite parties, M/s Dolphin Nursing Home and others (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondents').

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are the Appellant had got his pregnant wife, Smt. Sumita Halder admitted in the Respondent No.1/Nursing Home on 25.09.1991 at 7.40 pm on the advice of one Dr.M.B. Kanjilal, Respondent No.3 whom she had consulted during her pregnancy. Appellant paid Rs.2,000/- at the time of her admission and after she was medically checked, he was assured that the patient was in a normal and stable condition and there would be a normal delivery. On 26.09.1991 at 9.30 am, when Appellant came to the Respondent No.1/Nursing Home, he found that his wife was not in the bed earmarked for her and on enquiry, he was informed by the staff of the Respondent No.1/Nursing Home that she had delivered after having undergone a caesarean operation. Appellant was asked to sign certain documents in connection with the birth of the child which he did in good faith. When Appellant entered the Operation Theatre he found that his wife was unconscious and bleeding profusely. There was blood smeared on the floor as well as on the walls. At 10.45 am, Respondent No.3 entered the Operation Theatre and came out immediately thereafter and informed the Appellant that his wife was no more. Appellant contended that the death of his wife occurred in the Respondent No.1/Nursing Home because it did not have the proper infrastructure or arrangements for undertaking such deliveries. Neither the surgical instruments nor the Operation Theatre were of the required standard. Necessary facilities for blood transfusion, oxygen etc. were not readily available during the surgery. Further, the caesarean surgery was conducted on his wife without taking his consent and also immediately after the birth of the child, the anesthetist left the Operation Theatre and his wife was left unattended without a single doctor or nursing staff to monitor her condition. Being aggrieved by the medical negligence and deficiency which caused the death of his wife, Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that Respondents be directed to pay him jointly and severally Rs.18 lakhs as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

(3.) Respondents on being served denied the allegations of medical negligence and contended that Appellant's wife's condition was carefully monitored right from when she was admitted on 23.09.1991. Next day when the foetal heart rate was found to be 180/Minute which is high, using their best professional judgment to save the life of the unborn child, it was decided to deliver the child through caesarean section. This is also as per standard case practice when foetal distress is noted. Appellant who was away at that time was contacted over phone and his consent taken. When the operation was nearing completion, mild peripheral cyanosis was detected at the fingertips of the patient upon which necessary resuscitative measures were taken which initially improved the condition of the patient but there was reappearance of the cyanoses and the patient did not respond to any treatment and her condition continued to deteriorate. Emergency drugs /injections were given to her but the patient could not be saved. The cause of death was clinically diagnosed as "cardiac respiratory failure due to pulmonary embolism in post-operative case of caesarean section". Hence, there had been no lapse or deficiency in service on the part of Respondents.