K.K. Srivastava, President:
1. The complainant Mrs. Aarti Sharma alias Juhi Sharma, wife of Captain Gaurav Sharma seeks compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs from the O.Ps. - Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar and Indu Nursing Home Private Ltd. through its sole proprietor Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar on account of medical negligence committed during the delivery of a child at the Nursing Home. The complainant was pregnant and due to deliver and she had been visiting the aforesaid Nursing Home and consulting Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar. She was admitted at the Nursing Home on 3.8.2001 and the same day at about 6.22 p.m., a baby girl was born to her. The delivery was normal and it took place under overall in charge of O.P. No. 1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar. At the time of the birth, the child weighed around 2.7. Kgs. The complainant was discharged from the Nursing Home on 5.8.2001 at about 7.30 p.m. She was, however, not quite well and was complaining of uneasiness and had drawn the attention of Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar regarding her problem but the O.P. No. 1 was of the opinion that no further observation was required. The complainant reached her house and around 10.00 p.m., the same day, she felt pain and was quite uncomfortable. She contacted the O.P. No. 1 on telephone and apprised her of her condition. It is alleged that the attitude of the O.P. No. 1 was, however, unprofessional and rude and she asked the complainant to wait till morning. Since the condition of the complainant worsened, she was taken to Military Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir and admitted there in the early hours of 6.8.2001. She was examined by the doctors and was treated as a case of Retained Placenta and other Membrane and swelling of lower abdomen with fever. The remaining part of the placenta and other membrane were removed by the Surgeon at the Military Hospital in the surgical procedure conducted under general anesthesia. The placenta was sent for HPE which showed signs of infection of placenta with haemorrhage and degeneration. It is alleged that the complainant after delivering first child had developed a psychic fear from pregnancy and she did not like to go in for the second child. She alleged that even otherwise medically also, she may not be able to conceive due to the medical negligence committed by the O.Ps. The complainant recovered and was eventually discharged from the Military Hospital, Chandimandir on 8.8.2001 but she underwent severe pain, uneasiness and trouble, which were all attributable due to the negligent act on the part of O.P. No. 1. She paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards expenses for the treatment. She has alleged that the O.P. No. 1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar was guilty of highest degree of deficiency in service and medical negligence as she failed to remove the part of placenta and other membrane during the delivery.
2. The O.Ps. received notice of the complaint case and filed a written statement attaching therewith documents Annexures R-1 to R-5, denying the allegations of negligence and deficiency on their part and alleged that the sole purpose for filing the complaint was to extract money from the O.Ps. The respondent No. 1 instructed the complainant to visit the Nursing Home in the night of 5.8.2001 but she did not turn up and instead decided to go to the Command Hospital in the morning of 6.8.2001. It was contended that since the complainant acted against the medical advice of O.P. No. 1, she could not allege any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 1. It has also been contended that the complainant concealed material and relevant facts with a malafide and dishonest intention and the complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. The compensation claimed by the complainant which is to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs is imaginary and there is no yardstick of any scientific formula for claiming the said huge amount of compensation.
3. On facts, it was not disputed that the complainant was admitted at the O.P. No. 2 - Nursing Home. The O.P. No. 1 was a well qualified and experienced doctor in her field. She possessed a degree of M.D. (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) from P.G.I., Chandigarh and enclosed a copy of the Degree dated 19.3.1978 as Annexure R-1. She was awarded a bronze medal in recognition her merit in M.D. (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) vide Annexure R-2. She also held a Degree issued by the National Board of Examinations of India in the year 1980 for having passed M.N.A.M.S. (Member of National Academy of Medical Sciences) Examination in Obstetrics and Gynaecology vide Annexure R-3 which was equivalent to the Degree of M.R.C.O.G. of London. The O.P. No. 1 was practicing for the last more than 22 years and had conducted more than 10,000 deliveries including caesarean sections and emergency caesarean hysterectomies. It was for the first time that such allegations had been made against her by the complainant. Besides deliveries, the O.P. No. 1 conducted major gynaecological and obstetrical surgeries. Regarding normal delivery, she alleged that it referred to the mode of deilvery either through normal passage i.e. vagina or through caesarean section (by abdominal surgery). There were well accepted and documented complications of normal vaginal delivery world-wide. It was also admitted that a female baby was born to the complainant on 3.8.2001 at 6.22 p.m. at O.P. No. 1 - Nursing Home and the baby weighed 2.7. Kgs. The O.P. No. 1 personally conducted the delivery of the complainant giving personal care for which the Nursing Home was known. The complainant was discharged on 5.8.2001 after two days. The O.Ps. referred to a citiation from the book âWilliams Obstetrics, 21st International Edition, Page 417 (Gold Standard Text Books for M.D. Post Graduation), which reads as under :
âIf there are no complications, hospitalization is seldom required for more than 48 hours.â
4. It was alleged that in the case of the complainant since there were no complications in the form of post partum haemorrhage (excessive bleeding after delivery), shock (fall in blood pressure leading to death), episiotomy (collection of blood at the stitched site), fever etc., she was discharged. It was contended that the complainant complained of uneasiness at episiotomy site which was normal. The complainant was on pain-killers and antibiotics and it took around 10 days for the episiotomy to heal. The complainant had a very low threshold for pain and had required sedation during labour and for stitching of the episiotomy. The complainant, it was alleged, was very depressed after the birth of a female child. However, the complainant had normal blood pressure, pulse, temperature, bleeding per vaginum and normal episiotomy would at the time of discharge as is evident from the medical records vide copy Annexure R-4. It was further contended that the complainant was discharged on 5.8.2001 at about 7.30 p.m., and after about 2½ hours i.e. at 10.00 p.m., the husband of the complainant rang up the O.P. No. 1 to say that the uterus was coming out of vagina (lower part of birth canal). He was in panic and afraid. O.P. No. 1 explained to him that the uterus could not come out like this. The O.P. No. 1 also talked to the complainant who also said that the uterus was coming out and she was afraid to sit on the W.C. pot to pass urine. She was asked about any bleeding which she denied. The O.P. No. 1 advised the complainant to come to her. Nursing Home immediately as she was curious as to what was coming out. The complainant never came to the Nursing Home.
5. The O.P. No. 1 contended that she had been attending all obstetrical and gynaecological emergencies at all odd hours of the night for the last 22 years while running her Nursing Home. She used to get up in the middle of the night number of times in her practice which pointed out to the personal care which she took towards the patient. The complainant chose to go to the Command Hospital because of its proximity from her place and her father being the Major General posted at the Western Command, Chandimandir after 12 hours of staying at home. It was contended that even after 10-12 hours, after discharging from the Nursing Home, her physical condition did not deteriorate. As per medical case sheet of the Command Hospital, at page 18 of the complaint, her vitals were stable i.e. her pulse, blood pressure and temperature were normal and there was no bleeding per vaginum.
6. Regarding the comments attributed to the treating doctor at the Military Hospital, Chandimandir, it was said that there was hear-say as not having been corroborated by any evidence of life threating shock or active bleeding at any time after her delivery at the Nursing Home or at her house or the Command Hospital. She further contended that the complainant was not treated as a case of retained placenta at the Command Hospital which is called when the placenta is wholly or partially in the uterus and not in the vagina. Even as per medical case sheet of the Command Hospital, the complainant was admitted with history of mass per vaginum after a full term normal delivery on 3.8.2001. On examination, her vitals were stable i.e. pulse, respiration, temperature and blood pressure were normal and there was no bleeding per vaginum. She was found to be scared and apprehensive and her uterus was well-contracted which only happens when it is empty. The term âBag of membranes is normally used before delivery when the membranes are distended by amniotic fluid in labour. The same was seen at vulva, which was removed by O.P. No. 1 and as such there was no question of seeing the âBag of membranes by the doctor at the Command Hospital but the complainant had already delivered the baby. The uterine cavity of the complainant was also empty. Ultrasound test also showed empty uterine cavity which negatived the fact of retained placenta in the uterus. She pointed out that by definition, the placenta is called âretained when after delivery, the whole or part of it is retained in the uterus and it is almost certain to cause massive bleeding and shock immediately after delivery. The retained placenta requires special management in the form of manual removal from the uterus which was not needed in the case of the complainant either at the Nursing Home or at the Command Hospital. Only the blood clots, pieces of membranes and bits of placenta as shown by the histopathology report were in the vagina of the complainant which were removed by the doctor at the Command Hospital. She further pointed out that had the complainant sat on the W.C. in the night of 5.8.2001, these clots would have been expelled on their own. That complainant had been lying down for the last two days following delivery due to depression and part of normal bleeding (lochia) collected in the vagina. When the complainant became ambulatory (walking around) after the discharge, due to gravity blood clots, bits of membranes and bits of placenta presented at the vulva which was thought by the complainant as uterus coming out and she became panicky. She contended that blood clots alongwith placental bits have been clubbed as a piece of placenta weighing 240 grams. Normal placenta weights 500 grams and if half of the placenta is left inside, the patient will bleed like a tap immediately after delivery and would go into shock and die if unattended. The complainant, however, had no bleeding or shock at any time after her delivery. The O.P. No. 1 contended further that it appeared that the complainant had post partum blues (unhappiness because of discomfort after delivery), followed by post partum depression for which she required proper psychiatric counseling. It also appeared that she was not allowing her husband to have sex for fear of delivering another female child. According to the O.Ps. there was no deficiency in service on their part and no physical and financial loss was caused to the complainant by any act to the O.Ps.
7. The parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. The complainant filed her own affidavit and affidavit of Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.), Classified Specialist (Obst. and Gynae.) R/o Wellington, New Zealand attaching therewith a copy of Case Summary as Ex. P-3/1. The complainant also filed another affidavit to Lt. Col. Dr. N.S. Mani, Classified Specialist, Pathology, Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir attaching therewith a copy of Histopathological Report dated 6.8.2001. On the other hand, the O.Ps. filed in evidence, affidavit of Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar (O.P. No. 1) and affidavits of Dr. Umesh N. Jindal, Dr. Krishna Sood, both Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Dr. B.N. Datta, Consultant Pathologist. Questionnaires were served on the deponents of the affidavits filed in evidence on behalf of the complainant i.e. Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.) and Lt. Col. Dr. N.S. Mani (Retd.). Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.) only opted to file reply to the questionnaires served on him and Lt. Col. Dr. N.S. Mani (Retd.) did not file any reply to the questionnaires served on him.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the O.Ps. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the O.Ps. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate did not appear on the date of arguments and later filed written arguments with advance copy to the Counsel opposite. We have also carefully gone through the documentary evidence and the file of the complaint case.
9. A perusal of the facts narrated above will go to show that there is not much dispute between the parties regarding the facts. The only disputed fact is about the O.P. No. 1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar being called to attend the complainant in the night intervening 5/6.8.2001. The complainant has alleged that the behaviour of O.P. No. 1 when she was contacted on phone on 5.8.2001 at about 10.00 p.m. was rude and she repeatedly told the complainant to wait till morning and thus refused to examine her. The O.P. No. 1 on the other hand, while admitting that she was informed on telephone on the said date and time about the complainant feeling pain and being uncomfortable, she asked the complainant and her husband to bring her to her Nursing Home so that she may examine the complainant. She has further contended that she waited for the complainant to be brought to the Nursing Home but she was not brought to her Nursing Home and instead, it appears now, that she had been taken to Command Hospital for her treatment in the wee hours of the night intervening 5/6.8.2001.
10. The complainant filed her affidavit wherein, she deposed in Para 8 about her feeling pain and being highly uncomfortable around 10.00 pm. on 5.8.2001 as she was unable to pass urine and gave a call to the O.P. No. 1 and explained her condition to the O.P. No. 1 who replied back that worst would not happen, if the complainant waited till morning. In Para 9 of her affidavit, she stated that she was removed by her parents to the nearby Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir and admitted at wee hours on 6.8.2001 and was treated there. The O.P. No. 1 controverted this averment in her affidavit dated 2.1.2003. In Para 8 of her affidavit, which is in reply to Para 8 of the complaint as also Para 8 of the affidavit of the complainant, O.P. No. 1 deposed, inter alia, as under :
â8. That the contents of Para 8 of the complaint are wrong and denied. The complainant was discharged on 5.8.2001 at about 7.30 p.m. and after about two and a half hours i.e. at 10.00 p.m. the husband of the complainant rang up the respondent No. 1 to say that uterus (womb) was coming out of vagina (lower part of birth canal). He was in a panic and afraid. The respondent No. 1 explained to him that the uterus could not come out like this. The respondent No. 1 talked to the complainant who also said that the uterus was coming and she was afraid to sit on the WC pot to pass urine. She was asked about any bleeding, which she denied. The respondent No. 1 advised the complainant to come to her Nursing Home immediately because she was curious as to what was coming out, which she never did... As such, there is no question of the respondent No. 1s not attending the complainant at that hour of need at 10.00 p.m....â
The husband of the complainant, namely Capt. Gaurav Sharma did not file his own affidavit in this regard.
11. The complainant was admitted at Command Hospital where she was examined by Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.), Classified Specialist (Obst. and Gynae.). He filed his affidavit dated 27.2.2003, which was sworn in at New Zealand where he is residing at present at Wellington. He deposed in Para 3, inter alia, that Mrs. Aarti Sharma wife of Capt. Gaurav Sharma was brought by her father on 6.8.2001 in the morning and her condition was serious. The case summary which is Exhibit P-3/1 is in his own writing and he verified the contents there-of as being correct. In para 4 of the affidavit, he deposed that the complainant was a case of retained membranes and pieces of placenta. In the 5th and the last para, he deposed that the membranes and the pieces of placenta had not been removed at the time of delivery. The contents of his Paras 1 to 5 are verified as true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. This affidavit was verified on 27.2.2003 at Wellington, New Zealand, where the record of the case maintained at the Command Hospital, Chandimandir, was not before him and at least there is no averment in his affidavit that he had looked to the record of the case. It is difficult to believe that Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.) would have remembered these facts relating to the case of the complainant after a long lapse of more than 1½ years. The case summary which has been signed by Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.) and marked Exhibit P-3/1 does not bear verification of the Attesting Authority of New Zealand who in the case was Deputy Registrar, Lower Hutt, District Court nor it has been verified to be a true copy of the record.
12. Even if, this case summary be taken into consideration, it shows that on examination, the vitals were stable, patient was found to be scared and apprehensive, Abdomen - uterus well contracted, P/s â bag of membranes seen at the vulva, manual removal of parts of placenta and membrans was done and sent for HPE, Uterine cavity was explored and no further clots felt. She was treated with antibiotics. USG showed empty uterine cavity. The patient recovered and was discharged on 8.8.2001. The O.P. No. 1 was permitted to cross-examine Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.). On behalf of the O.Ps. written questions by way of cross-examination were filed and copy sent to Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.), deponent of the affidavit for his reply. The reply was received from Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.)
13. The learned Counsel for the O.Ps. drew our attention to Question Nos. 4 Sub Part (a), (b) and (e) and replies given by the deponent Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.).
Question 4(a) was as under :
âCan a patient be serious if her vitals are stable?â
The answer given by the deponent is âNoâ.
Question 4(b) was put to the witness as under :
âDo you call a `scared and apprehensive patient as recorded by you in your summary, a serious case even if her vitals are normal ?â
The answer given is âNoâ.
Question 4(e) was as under :
âIs it not true that after hearing the statement `any thing could have happened to the patient, if not brought to the hospital in time the patient and the relatives would be more anxious ?â
The answer is as under :
âThe anxiety the patient had at the time of examination was to such an extent that she wanted to write her Will in the event of her losing her life. She was reassured and only then was the examination and the treatment carried out.â
Question No. 5 put to the witness Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.) was as under :
âDid you still feel that the patient was serious and having noticed that the uterus was well contracted and that there was no bleeding per vaginum ?â
The answer given by the witness is as under :
âAfter ascertaining that the uterus was empty and well contracted and that there was no further danger to her life was the patient and her relatives told that she was not in any immediate danger.â
Question No. 6 was put in these words :
âWere the blood clots and membranes in the vagina or in the uterus ?â
The answer given by the witness is as under :
âBoth the blood clots and parts of placenta and the membranes were in the cervical canal and the vagina.â
Thereafter, the learned Counsel drew our attention to Question No. 21, which reads as under :
âIs it true that if the placenta is found to be complete after the delivery, how can 240 gms. of it can be left behind ?â
The witness gave the following answer :
âIf the examination was complete as stated then such large amounts of products of conception could not have been left behind.â
Question No. 23 reads as under :
âDid the patient at any time, while admitted in Indu Nursing Home or at Command Hospital had post partum haemorrhage immediately after deli-very ?â
Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.) gave the following answer :
âShe did not have any post partum haemorrhage in Command Hospital.â
Thereafter, Question No. 26 was referred to and its answer, which are as under :
âIs it possible that the blood clots and lochia can collect in the vagina, if the patient is not mobile ?â
âThe possibility exists though the fullness thus caused will cause discomfort to the patient and she will complain.â
Question No. 27 made the query âDo you think that an episiotomy would cause unease to the patient?â and its answer âYes. Refer Williams Obstetrics 18th Edition page 252 - under subsequent discomfort - during the first few days after vaginal delivery the mother may be uncomfortable for a variety of reasons - including after pains, episiotomy. Also refern 325 for pain and episiotomy.â
Last question and answer to it to which our attention is drawn is Question No. 35, which was put as under :
âIs it not true that some placental bits and clots and pieces of membranes can continue to be expelled in the lochia after 2-3 days after delivery ?â
âSmall clots and membranes and very small bits of placental tissue may be passed in the lochia.â
14. It is further difficult to belive that Lt. Col. Dr. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.) remember without any written note that at the time of the examination at the Command Hospital, the complainant was so panicky and apprehensive that she was even ready to execute her Will.
15. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the O.Ps. that the condition of the complainant as found at the Command Hospital did not show that seriousness as has been tried to be projected by the complainant and tried to be stated by the witness Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.). In this regard, reference may be made to the textbooks and affidavit of Dr. Umesh N. Jinal, Dr. Krishna Sood, both experts in gynaecology who were not cross-examined on behalf of the complainant with reference to their affidavits.
16. At page 5 of the written statement, in Para 10, the O.Ps. made reference to the fact that the complainant had been lying down for the last two days following delivery due to depression and part of normal bleeding (lochia) collected in the vagina. When the complainant became ambulatory (walking around) after the discharge, due to gravity blood clots, bits of membranes and bits of placenta presented at the vulva (outer opening of female birth canal), the complainant thought that the uterus is coming out and became panicky. Thereafter, reference as made to the text book âObstetrics by ten teachersâ an M.B.B.S. Book edited by Geoffrey Chamberlain and published by ELBS with Edward Arnold Page 187 wherein the Author commented as under :
âA piece of membrane retained in the uterus will probably not cause complications and will come away in 2-3 days. Uterine exploration is not necessary.â
17. It was further mentioned in this Para that âAfter delivery of the baby, the placenta is expelled of its own. In the case of the complainant, the placenta was delivered by Brandt Andrews technique, and was examined afterwards and was found to be normal. Swelling of lower abdomen and fever has nowhere been mentioned in the records of the Command Hospital and is not substantiatedâ. Reference was made to the drawing of the blood clots, bits of membranes and bits of placenta present in the vagina of the complainant in Annexure R-5.
18. Annexure R-5 has a heading âGlaring Inconsistencies. Then a sub heading âBag of membranes seen term used before delivery. Then the figure of vagina (outer passage of womb), vulva, bag of membrane, baby cord, placenta and amniotic membrane are referred to. Placenta has been described as normal ranging 500-550 grams. Amniotic membrane has been shown as normal covering of baby+placenta. Under the heading âClaim of Infection, it is mentioned âNo fever, no TLC DLC report, No Pus culture report, only on basis of microscopic examination of bits of placenta removed. At Item No. 3 âRetained Placenta as a whole or partial in the uterus has been shown. The case of the patient has been shown in vagina as empty well contracted uterus, membranes with bits of placental tissue, clots all weighing 250 gms. Presenting at the outer opening vulva, normal process of nature in which bits of placental tissue, membranes, clots are expelled on her own. It has further been mentioned that blood clots and pieces of membranes, placental bits clubbed together as placenta with maternal and foetal surface. On microscopic examination only bits of placental tissue seen. A gynaecologist and pathologist opinion was sought. At Item No. 5, 250 grams placenta is ½ normal placenta, if left :
(1) patient will bleed immediately after delivery.
(2) will go into shock, pulse would be fast and thready with fall in blood pressure.
(3) will require blood transfusion.
(4) if blood is not replaced, death will occur.
The note prepared by O.P. No. 1 shows that nothing of these happened in case of the complainant. Clinical features not suggestive of leaving 250 grams (½ placenta) inside the uterus.
19. Repelling the allegation about uncomfortability, the note shows at running Page No. 17 of Annexure R-5, in Item No. 6, âNo sex no pregnany - how can you claim infertility (mobility to conceive) without trying for a baby, No sign of tubal block or ultra sound finding suggestive of - (1) infection, (2) permanent danger to the birth canalâ. It is note worthy that the O.P. No. 1 Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar was not cross-examined with reference to her affidavit on behalf of the complainant.
20. We will now refer to the affidavits filed by Dr. Umesh N. Jindal, Dr. Krishna Sood. Dr. Umesh N. Jindal is a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Gynae and Fertility Research and IVF Centre, Sector 17, Chandigarh and former Assistant Professor of WHO/CCR, PGIMER, Chandigarh. Dr. Jindal is M.D. in Obst. and Gynae. in PGIMER, Chandigarh. He deposed after reading the case summary of the complainant written by Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.), after admitting in the Command Hospital and gave his opinion that the patient was not serious at any time after delivery in the Indu Nursing Home or at the Command Hospital, as her vitals were normal. He deposed that the complainant was apprehensive and required reassurance. Routine ultra sound after delivery is not advised. Routine uterine exploration after normal delivery is not advised. Explaining retained placenta, Dr. Umesh N. Jindal deposed in Para 5 that it is called retained placenta, when part of placenta or whole is retained in the uterus. Thereafter, he deposed in Para 6 that manual removal of the placenta is done from the uterus and not from vagina. In Para 7, he deposed that pieces of membranes, bits of placenta and clots may be expelled as normal lochia on 3rd-4th day after delivery. In Para 8, he deposed that blood clots in the vagina would have been expelled on their own. He doposed in Para 9 that in certain abnormal placentations like placenta succenturata (which can be seen in 5% of normal deliveries) and placenta duplex (seen in 1 in 350 deliveries) a piece of placenta might be retained, after the expulsion of the main placenta. He deposed in Para 10 that normal placenta weighs approximately 500 grams. In the 11 and the last Para, he deposed that patient is certain to have post partum haemorrhage, leading to shock if 240 grams of placenta is left behind, however, this patient did not have post partum haemorrhage.
21. Dr. Krishna Sood is also M.B.B.S., MD, Obstetrics and Gynae., Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Himachal Nursing Home, Sector 7, Panchkula and former Professor of Obgy. Gynae Department, Medical College, Shimla. Dr. Krishna Sood went through the case summary of the complainant prepared by Lt. Col. A.S. Kanwal (Retd.) and gave her opinion which is almost similar to the opinion given by Dr. Umesh N. Jindal.
22. Dr. B.N. Datta, MD, former Dean and Professor and Head, Department of Pathology, PGIMER, Chandigarh is now working as Consultant Pathologist, B.K. Aikat Memorial Cancer Screening Centre and Diagnostic Laboratory, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Dr. Datta after seeing the Histopathology report given by Lt. Col. N.S. Mani of Command Hospital gave his opinion as under :
âHistopathology report of sections of amniotic membranes showing haemorrhage and intense infilteration by acute inflammatory cells and edema and placental bits showing large areas of haemorrhage and degenerating chrionic villi and deciduas, which has been interpreted as acute chorio amnionitis with placental haemorrhage and degeneration, could be part of normal reactive and reparative process seen in the post partum period and is not an acceptable evidence of infection.â
23. Lt. Col. Dr. N.S. Mani filed his affidavit in which he gave his opinion on the tissue samples of the complainant in Para 3, which reads as under :
â3. That the tissue samples of Mrs. Aarti Sharma, wife of Capt. Gaurav Sharma labelled as âMembranes and part of placentaâ were received in the Histopathology Section of my Department on 6th August, 2001. The said tissues were examined and processed for histopathological examination. It was diagnosed as âacute chorioamnionitis with placental haemorrhages and degenerationâ. I had given my report Biopsy No. B/971/2001, dated 18.8.2001. On the top of the Report, dated 6.8.2001 is mentioned, which is the date when the tissues were received for examination. I identify my signatures on the said Report and the copy of the same is Ex. P2/1. My report has been made in routine and contents of the same are correct.â
24. The O.Ps. prayed for his cross-examination and filed questions to be put to Dr. Mani in cross-examination. The copy of the questions put to Dr. Mani were handed over to the learned Counsel for the complainant who took several opportunities to give its reply but no reply was placed on record. In the absence of the reply to the questions put in cross-examination, the affidavit of Lt. Col. Dr. N.S. Mani cannot be given due weight. Moreover, in his affidavit Dr. B.N. Datta has given his report on the basis of the report prepared by Lt. Col. Dr. N.S. Mani.
25. After analyzing the evidence placed on record, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to show that the O.P. No. 1 Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar was in any way guilty of any professional misconduct in the sense that she refused to see and examine the complainant in the night of 5/6.8.2001 around 10.00 p.m. when contacted on telephone. The O.P. No. 1 - Dr.(Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar communicated to the complainant and her husband that she would examine her in case she was brought to the O.P. No. 2 - Indu Nursing Home but the complainant and her relatives chose not to take her to the O.P. No. 2 -Nursing Home and instead she was taken to the nearby Command Hospital as the father of the complainant was posted as Major General at Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir. The O.P. No. 1 cannot be held to be negligent in not seeing and examining the complainant in the night of 5/6.8.2001. It is proved by evidence led by the O.Ps. that it was a case of normal delivery and in the case of normal delivery, accepted procedure was to discharge the mother after the normal delivery after 48 hours and her hospitalization was not further required. The O.P. No. 1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar followed the due and established procedure and as per accepted and settled norms and medical practice and attended the patient with due care and caution and as per her experience and expertise. The complainant has failed to show by the evidence on record that she suffered from complications which have been sought to be highlighted by the complainant from the record of the Command Hospital and the same cannot be treated to be sufficient and reliable to hold that the O.P. No. 1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Prabhakar was in any way medically negligent, careless or deficient in rendering service.
26. Resultantly, the complaint is devoid of merit and is dismissed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge.