NASEEM MOHAMMED BASHIR ANSARI Vs. DHANGE HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission where he had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondent-opposite parties.

(2.) Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant's wife Farzana, on getting pregnant was under treatment of third respondent-Dr. Jaya. The due date for delivery was 17th October, 1995. She contacted the doctor on 18th October, 1995 and then again reported with labour pains in morning of 19th October, 1995 at 6.45 a.m. The baby was delivered by the attending nurse at 7.00 a.m. and the doctor reached there at 7.45 a.m. only. On examination the doctor found the child and mother to be normal but at about 8.15 a.m. was found to be exhausted because of excess bleeding. She was brought out but at that time she had difficulty in breathing and her eyes were closed. The deceased told the complainant that her condition was precarious. Necessary medicines were administered but the condition of the deceased Farzana was deteriorating. Blood was arranged but the blood came very late. It was the case of the complainant that by this time his wife Farzana had died. It was the case of the complainant that his wife died on account of negligence on the part of the respondents as also the nurse who was not a qualified nurse. Blood was called much after Farzana had died. The alleged negligence was that had the doctor been present at the time of delivery, the unfortunate end could have been avoided. Thus, alleging medical negligence, a complaint was filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties and after perusal of material on record dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal before us.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. One of the main allegations against the respondents is that the doctor was not present at the time of delivery. After perusal of material on record we find that the deceased Farzana came to the hospital on 18th October, 1995 and the doctor advised her to get admitted in the hospital, as she had passed on due delivery date i.e. 17.10.1995 she could deliver any time as the due date has passed but the deceased decided to go to home and again came next day morning i.e. on 19th October, 1995 at about 6.45 a.m. with severe labour pain. Sister on duty found the deceased at, advanced stage of delivery, as cervix was fully dilated and the head of the baby was near the perineum ready to come out. The baby was delivered at about 7.00 a.m. In these circumstances, it would be appreciated that since she did not stay in the hospital despite medical advice and then she came all of a sudden while advanced labour pains, and since the concerned doctor is not supposed to be present all the time, the doctor obviously would take some time to come which in this case happened within one hour. As per medical record, upon arrival the doctor examined the baby and the mother at about 7.45 a.m. and found them to be normal. The complications started only from 8.15 a.m. Necessary medicines were prescribed. Intravenous drip was commenced and Saline and Dexona were administered. On vaginal examination of deceased Farzana it was found to be a case of D.I.C. and there was huge bleeding. The blood group was found to be 'O' positive. Blood was called for. Other concerned doctors were also called. 100% oxygen was administered and it was seen that the deceased had started bleeding from gums and throat as well. Her throat was cleared with 'suction machine' and the patient was intubated for helping her take-in 100% oxygen. Despite this the deceased Farzana died at about 10.40 a.m. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show us anything by which it could be determined that 'due care' was not taken by the respondents in taking care of the deceased.