ANAND PARKASH Vs. SATYA SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Anand Parkash, Appellant herein and original complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had dismissed his complaint of medical negligence against Dr. Satya Sawant and Anr., Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.

(2.) In his complaint before the State Commission, Appellant had stated that his late wife Smt. Usha Rani (hereinafter referred to as the Patient) on conceiving her second child in March, 1996 was under the medical supervision and care of Respondent No.1, who apart from working in Respondent No.2-Hospital was also doing private practice. On 22.12.1996, the patient approached Respondent No.1 with mild labour pains and was admitted on advice of Respondent No.1 in Respondent No.2-Hospital, where she was put on a drip to induce labour for a normal delivery. Respondent No.1 was fully aware that patient's first child had been delivered through cesarean section and that she was also suffering from anaemia with a very low haemoglobin count but no arrangements for blood transfusion in anticipation of any emergency was made. She was kept in the labour room, where after 40 hours of labour she delivered a male child. The patient developed complications immediately after delivery and blood transfusion became necessary. Appellant and his family donated seven units of blood on the spot, which was infused without any cross checking. Soon after, the patient went into an irreversible shock and was declared dead at 5.40 P.M. Shocked and aggrieved by her untimely and avoidable death, Appellant lodged an FIR at the Police Station and also a complaint with the Commissioner, Hisar Division, after which an enquiry was conducted by doctors from the Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak but nothing came out of it because of Respondent No.1's political clout. Appellant, therefore, filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service against Respondents, which led to the tragic and untimely death of his wife, who was gainfully employed. It was requested that the Respondents be jointly and severally directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,65,512/-, which included loss for future earnings at Rs.6500/- per month, medical and other expenses as also litigation costs.

(3.) Respondents on being served filed written submissions, in which they denied that there was any medical negligence or deficiency in service on their part. Respondent No.1 while admitting that the basic cause leading to the death of the patient was Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPH) contended that following Patient's death independent enquiries were conducted by a Medical Board of PGIMER, Chandigarh, which confirmed that there was no negligence or deficiency in service in the medical treatment and care to the Patient. Further, an enquiry conducted by another Board of experts from Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak also concluded on the basis of evidence before it, including the medical records, that there was no medical negligence in this case. It was specifically concluded that at the time of her delivery, the Patient was not anaemic as contended by the Appellant and it was only after careful assessment of her condition that she was cleared for a normal delivery. The fact that she had previously undergone a cesarean section by itself was not contraindicated in this case since the first cesarean section was necessitated because of pre-oclasptia and not because of any cephalo pelvic disproportion. The process of her labour was carefully monitored and the labour period in fact was less than 24 hours during which period all care and precautions were taken. The Appellant was also asked to arrange blood well in advance. After the PPH occurred, standard emergency treatment was given, including seven units of blood, but unfortunately patient went into irreversible shock and she could not be saved. It was also contended that the police had investigated the matter and found no medical negligence on the part of Respondents. Respondent No.1 also stated that she had not taken any monetary consideration from the Patient. She treated her not in her capacity as a private practitioner but in the Respondent-Hospital which is run as a Trust. Under the circumstances, the case is not legally maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.