MRS. RENU PANDEY vs M/S. LAL NURSING HOME & ORS.

Mrs. Renu Pandey, the complainant, underwent Caesarean section (LSCS) delivery, on 20.8.2000, at M/s Lal Nursing Home. After three days of operation, the complainant noticed pus started oozing from stiches. She had severe abdominal pain and high grade fever. She was discharged from nursing home after 15 days, though, still pus was coming from her vagina. She visited OP again, the pus was cleaned at alternate, but no relief. Hence, on 3.9.2000, she consulted Escort Hospital. Thereafter, she had gone to Agra, took treatment from Dr.Sarkar between 13.9.2000 to 17.9.2000. Then, she was shifted to AIIMS, on 18.9.2000, where she was operated and it was found that, OPs 1 to 3 had left foreign material i.e. Placental and membrane bits during the LSCS. There was excessive blood loss also. She was discharged from AIIMS on 10.10.2000. Therefore, the complainant alleged that, due to negligence of OPs, she incurred high expenditure and suffered severe mental agony. Hence, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, Faridabad.

The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs 1 to 4 to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards her medicines and treatment, plus Rs.10,000/- for transportation and Rs.2,500/- as litigation costs.

Aggrieved by the order of District forum, appeals were preferred by both the parties before the State Commission. First appeal No. 1547 of 2008 filed by OPs was allowed, whereas, the complainant''s appeal No. 989 of 2008 was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the complainant filed these revision petitions.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and also the parties appeared in person. There is a delay of 147 days in filing these revision petitions. The main grievance of the complainant was that, the OP/doctor left the placental and membranous bits inside the uterus after LSCS which was the cause of oozing of pus. The OP did not take it seriously; therefore, pus was oozing, continuously for 15 days.

The Counsel for OP Dr. P.N.Tiwari, brought our attention to the biopsy report, AIIMS showing that there were no placental or membranous bits in the uterus. The patient was afebrile continuously; there was mild pain post- operatively. The Escort and AIIMS did not find any foreign products i.e. placenta or membranes in the uterus.

The histopathological diagnosis reported at AIIMS was: "D & C consists of fragments of fibrin, blood, endometrial glands with hemosiderin laden macrophages in the tissue. No villi are identified."

We have perused the medical record. Accordingly, the patient was operated at Lal Nursing Home by LSCS, she developed post-operative wound infection. Pus culture and sensitivity test was advised. The patient was put on higher antibiotics. During arguments, the counsel for complainant produced one OPD record of Escorts Hospital. It shows that, on 20.8.2000 Dr. Nisha

Kapoor noted that the patient had fever and wound infection. She was afebrile for two days. There was wound discharge and foul smelling discharge P/V. On examination, she had noted seropurulent discharge from operated stitches, the per speculum (P/S) examination revealed copious purulent discharge. Hence, she was treated with antibiotics, like Cefctum, Cefexime and Augmentin. The AIIMS record (OPD) dated 18.9.2000 revealed some findings and the same medicines were continued. The D & C was performed at AIIMS on 23.9.2000, it ''s histopathology(biopsy) study did not show any products of conception/villi.

Therefore, it is clear that the patient''s suffering was not due to any retained products in the uterine cavity. No doubt, the patient developed stitch infection despite the administration of higher antibiotics and dressing. The pyometra developed was not due to any negligence of OP, there are several reasons, including the patient''s hygiene and health condition. Hence, we do not find any negligence on the part of OPs. In the Jacob Mathews Case (2005) 6 SCC 1 it was observed by Hon''ble Supreme Court as; When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions.

Secondly, there is delay of 147 days in filing these revision petitions. We are not convinced with the reasons stated in the applications for condonation of delay. Therefore, we dismiss the revision petitions on merits as well as on the point of delay. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.