C H JAYARAM Vs. MALLIKA SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the parties. This complaint is filed by the father, the husband and the child of the deceased, Mrs. Sangeeta S. (hereinafter referred to as the patient). At the time of the expected date of delivery she was aged about 29 years. It is the contention of the Complainants that the patient was taking psychiatric treatment for years, hence, prior to death and before the delivery her psychiatrist in Bombay was consulted for a normal vaginal delivery. It is also stated that the first opponent, Dr. Mallika Samuel had also also obtained the opinion of the psychiatrist in Madras. As she was not having any labour pains on the expected date of delivery, she was, therefore, admitted in the hospital of Opposite Party No.2 on 19th February, 1996 under the care of Opposite Party No.1. After the admission, as the patient was not having any labour pains opposite party No.1 decided to induce labour pains by means of drugs. Ultimately she delivered a male baby at 3.31 p.m. (Complainant No.3).

(2.) IT is contended that after delivery, the patient never came out alive. She died on the same day as opposite parties mismanaged and neglected her which led to her ultimate death. Hence this complaint was filed for deficiency of service with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.7 lakhs to the Complainant No.1 (Father), Rs.7 lakhs to Complainant No.2 (Husband) and Rs.2 lakh to Complainant No.1 for having to bring up the baby as his mother died and to pay Rs.5 lakhs to the third Complainant for depriving him of the love, affection, care of a mother since his birth. In the written version the opposite parties denied that there was any deficiency in service or negligence in treatment on the part of the opposite party No.1.

(3.) HOWEVER , in support of their case the Complainants have examined Dr. I.B. Bandookwala who had given opinion previously to the effect that the death was not due to Amniotic Fluid Embolism. In cross-examination he was virtually required to admit that it was because of erroneous reason or against the medical texts. The relevant part of the cross-examination is given below: