CH. RAVI KUMAR & ANR. vs DR. M. SYAM SUNDER

The brief facts are that the Petitioner/Complainant No.2, Smt. Padmavati during her pregnancy was under regular observation and follow up by the OP/Respondent, Dr. Shyam Sunder at Sri Venkateswara Hospital, Nandigam, Krishna District. Throughout her pregnancy, till nine months, on every examination the OP used to express that the growth of baby was good. On 23-11-2006 at 7:00 A.M., patient had labour pains and consulted the opposite party. Subsequently, on next day, due to unbearable pain she got admitted in the OP''s hospital. The opposite party conducted the operation, delivered a dead fetus. The OP told that the fetus died two days back. The patient was discharged from the hospital on 30-11-2006. The complainants alleged that though the patient was constantly under medical checkup of opposite party, who assured her that everything was normal, despite that she delivered still born baby. The doctor was careless, did not send her for scanning or any other expert opinion for better treatment. Therefore, due to negligence of the doctor, she lost her baby. Thereafter, patient and her husband filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vijaywada (hereinafter ?District Forum") and claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation.

Before the District Forum, the opposite party resisted the complaint and denied about any negligence. According to OP, he treated the patient with good intention, removed the still born baby to save the life of the mother.

After considering pleadings and evidence, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainants. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party preferred first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter, the State Commission). It was partly allowed and State Commission reduced the compensation amount from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and confirmed the rest of the order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, the complainant filed the instant revision petition.

Heard the counsel for the parties. The proxy counsel for the respondent, Mr. A. Chandra Sekhar submitted that the written arguments may be considered as arguments on behalf of OP. On behalf of the complainants/petitioners, the learned counsel, Mrs. K. Radha, submitted that the doctor failed to monitor the patient properly. From the medical record, it is clear that the patient''s weight was reduced during last month of pregnancy. Counsel brought my attention to the body weight of the patient recorded from 05-07-2006 to 23-11-2006. Accordingly, the weight on 05-07-2006 was 58 kg., 07-08-2006 was 59 kg., 12-09-2006 was 60 kg., on 23-10-2006 it was 64 kg.. Thereafter, on 22-11-2006 her weight was recorded as 60 kg.. Counsel further submitted that the patient was never advised for ultrasound study by the opposite party during the said period. As per exhibit A1, the complainant started gaining weight from 05-07-2006 to 23-10-2006, she gained about 7 kg. of weight in four months but all of a sudden in the last month, she lost 4 kg.. Thus, it was obligation of opposite party to explain the reason for sudden weight loss. Due to negligence of opposite party a still born baby was born.

The counsel for opposite party submitted that on 23-11-2006 at about 9:00 P.M., the complainant No.2 was admitted in the hospital for severe pain and discomfort in the abdomen. After relief from the pain she left hospital. On the next day evening, she again came to the hospital for the severe abdominal pain. On examination, the opposite party found that she had inactive labour, as it was post LSCS pregnancy and there was chance of threatened rupture. Therefore, immediate casear operation was performed. The dead fetus was removed. The patient was discharged on seventh day after removal of sutures, without paying the balance of amount to the hospital. The counsel further submitted that, Nandigam is virtually a rural area and the doctors practising in that area had limited resources and availability of the facilities to carry out the investigations and treatment. The opposite had performed duty at the best to redeem the patient out from emergency. Opposite party is a qualified gynaecologist having 20 years'' experience and no negligence of any nature was attributed to her. The counsel submitted that the patient did not followed advice to get admitted initially so that the fetus might have been saved as there would have been constant and continuous medical care. Due to non-cooperative attitude of the complainants, caused death of the fetus. Even the medical board arrived at the conclusion that there was no medical negligence in the treatment given by the opposite party. It was the complications during delivery. There was no deficiency in service or any negligence on the part of the opposite party.

As per medical literature there are number of causes for still born delivery which include the fetal chromosomal abnormalities, malformation, fetal infections, Rh incompability and itrogenic causes. The counsel for the opposite party relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2001 dated 24-03-2009 between Ms. Ins. Malhotra Vs. Dr. A. Kriplani & Ors. to establish that, he did not render any negligent treatment.

As per the affidavit of opposite party, she is an experienced gynaecologist practising for more than 20 years, in the rural area and having inadequate health facilities. Also the anesthetist has to come from 60 kilometers to visit the village. As, opposite party had sufficient experience to deal with anesthesia for lower abdominal surgery, she used to give anesthesia. She performed LSCS to deliver still born baby. Perused the medical record/Exhibit B1. It is clear that opposite party diagnosed the patient as ?threatened rupture of uterus", there was tenderness in the lower part of uterus. The fetal movements were not clearly heard. Therefore, the treating doctor had a prime concern to save the mother in the instant case.

Considering entirety of facts and on the basis of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition. Hence, it is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.