VIJAY H MANKAR Vs. MANGLA BANSOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Petition No. 221/92 has been filed by Shri Haribhau Mankar, husband of late Mrs. Lata Vijay Mankar for alleged medical negligence on the part of Dr. Mangala Bansod, Bansod Nursing Home, Medical Chowk, Nagpur, (opposite party 1) in the treatment rendered to his late wife; Mr. Naresh Bansod (husband of opposite party 1) and Casualty Medical Officer, Government Medical College Hospital, were respectively opposite parties 2 and 3. This case was originally filed before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as Complaint No. 16/91 where it was heard but by its order dated 21.9.1992, the State Commission felt that due to certain circumstances explained in that order, the complaint could be withdrawn and posted to any other State Commission for decision upon which the National Commission ordered withdrawal of the said complaint to the National Commission and posting of the same for hearing before it. During the proceedings before the National Commission, the Commission directed through its order dated 23.2.1999 that there is no reason for making opposite parties. 2 and 3 as parties and their names may be struck out from the array of opposite parties. In the result, opposite party No. 1 who was the treating doctor against whom allegations of medical negligence have been mainly made is the only opposite party. In view of this, we shall refer to opposite party No. 1 as opposite party in our discussion.

(2.) Facts of the case according to the complainant are as follows. The complainant's wife (deceased), Lata Mankar, aged 37 years was a regular patient of opposite party and during her pregnancy, she was regularly treated and consulted all through her pregnancy by opposite party, a Gynaecologist, practising in Nagpur since last few years. The patient was mother of two daughters aged about 16 years and 12 years. Almost near the expected time of delivery on 31.5.1990, at about 12.30 p.m. Lata Mankar was feeling uneasy and she went to opposite party's. nursing home, alongwith her mother, Sudhatai Surkar. After check-up, opposite party told her that there is nothing to worry and prescribed her some medicines and advised her to go home, as there was a week's time for delivery. However, after taking the medicines prescribed by the opposite party, she had bleeding (black) in the night, which she noticed on the next day morning. On the next day i.e. 1.6.1990, she went to the nursing home around 12.30 p.m. alongwith her mother-in-law. Opposite party sent her to Dr. Gheeke Khandelwal for sonography which was done at about 2.30 p.m. that day and the report showed that the foetus was dead. Thereafter, the patient was admitted in the nursing home at about 3.00 p.m. on 1.6.1990. However, upto 8.00 p.m. for five hours, no treatment and attention was given to her; when asked by Dr. (Mrs.) Kumud Surkar (sister-in-law of the deceased) who is also a doctor, about the cause of death of foetus in the womb, opposite party avoided to answer. Around 7.00 p.m. the patient started pains and her brother Dr. Vilas Surkar (also a doctor) requested opposite party to take quick action but she came at about 8.00 p.m. and started pitocin drip around 9 p.m. and went back. The patient was tired due to pains and mental tension and at about 11.30 p.m. when her condition became worse, her sister-in-law went to opposite party's house and requested her to perform caesarean operation to remove the dead foetus but opposite party said that it was not necessary and that the foetus would come out normaly. Near about 12.00 p.m., opposite party came to her nursing home from her residence and thereafter, the patient was removed to the labour room. Till 2.00 a.m., what was going on in the labour room was not known to the relatives who were standing outside the labour room. At 2.00 a.m., opposite party came out of the labour room and told the relatives that the patient has delivered a baby naturally and she was alright. Within 5-10 minutes, however, opposite party asked the patient's relatives to arrange for two bottles of blood of 'O' Positive group, as there was profuse bleeding. The patient's brother, Dr. Surkar and his friend, Dr. Milind Naik went out for arranging blood from a blood bank of Dr. Wankar situated at Panchsheel Square, Wardha Road, Nagpur. Before going to the blood bank, the patient's brother requested opposite party to take blood of her Doctor friend whose blood group is also 'O' positive, but she refused to take direct blood, on the ground that without cross-matching of blood, she will not take blood. The doctor sister-in-law of the patient asked opposite party to allow her into the labour room to see the patient but opposite refused. The complainant who was present in the nursing home was asked to arrange for more blood as the requirement of blood was 10 to 12 bottles and two bottles were not sufficient. According to the complainant, there was some mala fide intention as all the responsible and male members were deliberately sent out of the nursing home under the pretext of arranging blood. In the meanwhile when the complainant went to the blood bank, the doctor sister-in-law of the patient found opposite party and her husband with the help of one Dr. Deola and a nurse in the hospital, shifting the body of the patient completely wrapped in a white bed sheet in a maruti van. Another sister-in-law of the deceased, Mrs. Malti Mankar was asked to accompany them in the van. The head of the patient was on the lapse of Malti Mankar who observed that the body was quite cool and there was no movement in the body. She was not allowed to see the face of the patient by opposite party's. husband who was then driving the van. When the body of the patient was shifted in the van, no life saving equipment like blood or saline was attached to her; the body was shifted to Government Medical College (GMC) Hospital without the consent or knowledge of her relatives. In the G.M.C. opposite party hurriedly pulled the patient out of the Van, kept the body on streture and drove the streture herself to Ward No. 18. Opposite party's husband asked Mrs. Malti Mankar to wait at the main gate for the other relatives, who had gone for blood arrangement. Mrs. Malti Mankar, Mr. Vijay Mankar and Dr. Milind Naik, rushed to Ward No. 18 and found Mrs. Lata dead. The complainant submitted that the patient was directly taken to Ward No. 18 instead of taking to casualty, while opposite party's husband went for the formality of casualty card etc. In the G.M.C., no medical treatment was given to the deceased as she was already dead which fact has been registered in the record of G.M.C. The complainant has mentioned that the patient was admitted in the G.M.C. on the early morning on 2.6.1990 at about 2.45 a.m. and as per the death certificate of G.M.C., the time of death was 3.05 a.m. and the cause of death was P.P.H. (Post Partum Haemorrhage). In the discharge report, opposite party admitted that the deceased started profuse bleeding at about 2.15 a.m. It is complainant's case that Mrs. Lata's death was due to profuse bleeding on account of the insistence of opposite party to deliver the baby naturally and the death occurred prior to the removal of the patient to G.M.C. Opposite party had tried unscientific ways, unprecedented to medical science and knowledge, for delivery of the baby as the baby was deeped in blood and the skin of the baby was having various injuries. According to the complainant, the foetus must have died 4 to 5 days before delivery but this was not checked up by opposite party on 31.5.1990. The complainant's brother had alerted the opposite party to keep every thing ready for emergency which may arise and also to take expert opinion. Opposite party should have made arrangements for blood and anesthesia before hand, but no such arrangements were made. Anesthesia Specialist Dr. Deole and his wife, the Gynaecologist entered the labour room at 2.00 a.m. on 2.6.1990 which is the time of the delivery of the baby; thus both these Specialists were not present at the time of delivery of the baby nor did they play any role in the process of delivery. In the Discharge Report, opposite party's statement that the deceased was shifted from her nursing home to G.M.C. with the consent of relatives of deceased is false. Also opposite party's averment that when the patient was admitted to Ward No. 18 'C' drip was attached to her is false. The request of relatives of the deceased for post mortem was deliberately avoided by opposite party. The complainant submitted that their request to the Casualty Medical Officer (CMO) for police investigation and to register a medico-legal case was denied by the CMO.

(3.) The complainant stated that the deceased paid consultation fees to opposite party whenever she went for check up. The complainant, alleged that opposite party, a practising Gynaecologist failed to take reasonable care to provide skilled service to the late Mrs. Lata and to follow the rules and regulations of professional ethics provided under Medical Council's Act and Code of Discipline, and was solely responsible for the death of the complainant's wife which occurred because of her gross negligence. The complainant has also mentioned that opposite party's husband who had no connection with the medical profession has abetted the opposite party in concealing the death of the patient in the nursing home. On this basis, the complainant claimed damages and compensation from opposite party and her husband for a sum of Rs. 7,47,600/- comprising, (i) Rs. 2,37,600/- towards loss of earnings at Rs. 900/- p.m. and considering the longtitude of 60 years age; (ii) Rs. 3 lakhs towards de-limiting the right of living and for loss of motherhood of two daughters; (iii) Rs. 1 lakh for negligence towards the foetus in womb and its death; (iv) Rs. 1 lakh for harassment and tension to complainant and his family; and (v) Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of complaint.