M RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY vs PARAKULAM ELISHAMA BABU

-ELIZABETH, wife of the complainant who was pregnant, was consulting the respondent Dr. M. Vedamani, Gynaecologist who gave the tentative date of delivery as 28. 1. 1993. She was admitted into the Chaitanya Nursing Home on 29. 1. 1993 at 9. 15 p. m. The respondents kept her on I. V. Glucose bottles to enable the patient to develop labour pains and subsequent normal delivery. As normal delivery did not take place they took her to the operation theatre and she was operated upon and a male child was born. The resident doctors neither tested the blood group nor called an anaesthetist for assistance. She was brought back to the ward around 2 a. m. on 31. 1. 1993. She complained of pain and vomited twice. She was given three types of injection but pain continued and the respondent put her on oxygen at the instance of the complainant and she breathed her last at 7. 30 p. m. on 31. 1. 1993.

THE District Forum after hearing the parties and going through the evidence of the case, allowed the complaint in part and directed the respondents Dr. M. Radhakrishna Murthy, M. S. and Dr. Vedamani, MBBS, DGO of the Chaitanya Nursing Home to jointly pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards loss of consortium and service, and a sum of Rs. 75,000 towards love and affection and parental care of the children together with interest at 18% p. a. on Rs. 1,25,000 from 10. 6. 1994 till the date of payment with Rs. 500 as towards cost. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum the respondent doctors filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. After hearing the parties, the State Commission awarded Rs. 50,000 for the negligence with 12% interest p. a. from the date of complaint.

Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission Dr. M. Radhakrishna Murthy has filed this revision petition.

A perusal of the order of the State Commission indicates that despite observing that there was no deficiency in conducting the delivery and appropriate treatment was given, once the complications arose, the Commission went ahead awarding compensation to the complainant for the negligence of the two doctors. In this connection it is useful to quote relevant extracts of the State Commission Order. "therefore, it appears that there was no deficiency in conducting the delivery and appropriate treatment was given once the complications arose. Even if an anaesthetist was present at the time of delivery it would not have made any difference but the question arises whether the anaesthetist would have continued to attend the patient after she regained consciousness and slept for 3 hours. We find from the books that Amniotic Fluid Embolism is a complication which may arise any time and the on set is always sudden. Therefore, what the appellants had done is what is expected of an average doctor under the unanticipated emergency and so long as doctors attend to patients to the best of their ability and diligence, we cannot call it deficiency even if the patient did not survive. "therefore, we find that they did not show enough diligence to contact an anaesthetist in time, because of which surgery had to be performed without his presence and subsequently when Amniotic Fluid Embolism manifested there was no specialist to administer oxygen or perform suction from the lung. It is difficult to say if the wife of the complainant would have survived after Amniotic Fluid Embolism set in. Therefore, we are of the opinion that though there was deficiency in not contacting anaesthetist earlier the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for her death which was an accident. "

The complainant has not chosen to file an appeal against this order of the State Commission. Hence, as far as the complaint is concerned this order has become final. We fail to understand the necessity to award compensation to the complainant even after it was held that the respondent doctors are not deficient in service. Therefore, we set aside the order of the State Commission and allow this revision petition. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.