No sensible Doctor would intentionally commit an act or omission to the detriment of the patient. The Doctor has right to select the procedure Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. ©

No sensible Doctor would intentionally commit an act or omission to the detriment of the patient. The Doctor has right to select the procedure 

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. ©

The Case claiming negligence due to overdose of anesthesia or excessive bleeding during C-Section, causing death of a patient, dismissed. 

Case Details :

J.N. Shori multi-speciality Hospital, Panchkula, Haryana & anr. v. Krishan Lal. 

REVISION PETITION NO. 2988 OF 2012, decided on 23/07/2021

Before : Hon. Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.

Judgment Link :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147676945/

Facts in Short :

1. The Deceased Patient - Smt. Kiran i.e. the wife of the complainant was under regular observation in Civil Hospital during her pregnancy. As she started having labour pains, she was admitted to the Kalka Nursing Home on 15/06/2007 and remained under observation and then was referred to the Appellant no.1 hospital -OP-1, where Dr.Sangeeta Shori i.e. the Appellant no.2 - OP-2, performed a C section and a baby girl was delivered.

2. It was alleged that, after the Operation, the patient developed pain and she became critical and unconscious; therefore the OP-2 referred the patient to PGI Chandigarh without providing any medical attendant. The patient died on the way and she was brought back to the OP-1 hospital. The Death Certificate issued by the OP-2 stated the cause of death as septicemia with labour pains. it was alleged that the Patient died due to overdose of Anesthesia or excessive bleeding during the delivery. Thus the Consumer Compliant was filed in the District Forum.

Defence of the Opponents. 

1. The Opponents refuted all the claims. It was submitted that the patient was brought to  hospital in serious condition on 15.07.2006 having 50% effaced cervix, fever 1020 F, pulse rate was high- 106 per minute and high respiratory rate - 28 per minute. 

2. It was diagnosed as septicemia and the treatment was started immediately to save the patient as well as the baby. The patient's hemoglobin was 6.2g%, OP-2 sent the ambulance to collect the blood two units from Rotary and Blood Societies Resources Centre, Chandigarh. At 5.30 p.m., after taking informed consent of her husband Krishan Lal, the Caesarian operation was performed. 

3. After the operation during closure of operative wound the patient suffered hypotension and convulsion, but as she did not improve, she was referred to PGI Chandigarh, Higher Center. 

The District commission allowed the Compliant and ordered the Appellants -opponents  to pay jointly and severally a lump sum compensation of Rs 5,00,000 plus interest. The State Commission also upheld the District Forum’s decision and hence the Revision was filed in National Commission.

Held :

1. After perusing the record, the National Commission set aside orders of both the lower forums and allowed the Revision Petition of Doctor and Hospital. The Operative notes were properly maintained and record revealed that after informed consent was taken, then only the emergency operation was performed. 

2. The National Commission relied upon the celebrated case of  Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1. It is known that in a critical and emergent situation, the medical practitioner is always left between the devil and the deep sea where the decision to be taken then and there. The medical practitioner faced with such an emergency always tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient.

3. The Commission further observed that : 

a) a mere deviation from normal professional practice is not a negligence, or b)   mere accident is not evidence of negligence or c)   an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se.

4. The National Commission opined that the patient was in an advanced stage of labour and it was an emergency, so Doctor's decision was correct to perform an emergency Caesarean operation to save the life of the patient and foetus. The Commission lastly held that the duty of treating doctor is to decide the method of treatment depending upon the condition of the patients and the circumstances of each case, thus it cannot be construed as medical negligence.

5. The Commission also observed that both the lower forums did not find Doctors as guilty of Negligence, but held the Doctors guilty for not referring the patient to Higher Center.

This Judgment talks about the day to day situation faced by many Doctors and perhaps have given solace to many Doctors. Because, to select one amongst the many procedures or mere an error of judgment or for that matter accidents, these scenarios are faced by Doctors very often. But what Forum has opined is important that a Doctor won't get anything from losing his/her patient. Which prudent Doctor would like to see the patient dying or suffering ? No doubt, the loss suffered by the Complainant is irreversible, but it cannot be attributed to  Negligence of treating Doctor.

With kind regards

(Adv. ROHiT ERANDE) ©

Pune.