SAVITRI DEVI W/O. LATE JAGDISH CHANDRA GUPTA vs DR. PRAMILA GUPTA W/O. DR. A.K. GUPTA

The petitioner/complainant filed this revision petition against the impugned order dated

8.2016 passed in first appeal No. 374 of 2015 by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna.

The brief facts relevant to dispose of this revision petition are that complainant, Smt. Savitri Devi''s daughter (hereinafter referred as ''the patient'') underwent cesarean operation on 8.3.2006. It was performed by Dr. Pramila Gupta/OP. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to Dr. Pramila Gupta/OP towards the charges. It was alleged that the patient was neglected during the operation, which resulted bleeding after delivery i.e. Post Partum Hemorrhage (PPH). OP failed to control the bleeding (PPH) and again performed second operation, due to which, her internal organs, including kidney failed to function properly. The patient was then referred to PMCH, where she died during the course of treatment. Therefore, with the alleged medical negligence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Patna.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint. The first appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed by State Commission, Patna. Hence, this revision petition.

At admission, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He narrated the facts mentioned in the complaint. We have perused the evidence on record, the medical opinion and the observation made by State Commission. It is admitted fact that OP has received the charges towards her services, OP denied allegation of negligence in performing operation. The State Commission observed that the patient approached the OP 11 days after the expected date of delivery and there was no fetus distress. Therefore, the caesarian operation was advised. Patient was operated on 8.3.2006. The patient was not fit to deliver the child, thereby suddenly developed shock due to PPH. The bleeding was managed properly and patient became under control of complication of PPH. She was operated for that again. Due to her critical condition, the patient was referred to PMCH for further management. In the instant case, the complainant has not proved whether the operation was performed negligently or the post operative care was not taken properly. The complainant took an opinion dated 18.11.2006 from Dr. L.P. Gupta whereas, on the other hand, OP produced the report of medical board consisting of civil surgeon, Patna. We have perused both the opinions. Nothing is conclusive from the opinion of Dr. L. P. Gupta, whereas the expert report submitted by Civil Surgeon clearly revealed that there was no negligence or deficiency. Dr. L. P. Gupta opined without any material, otherwise also Dr. L. P. Gupta is qualified as M.B.B.S., DMRD, MRSH(Lond), who is not competent to give the opinion. It is vague and general opinion, which was observed by the State Commission as hereunder:

"We have considered the rival case of the parties, we do not find any evidence which could be relied to substantiate the allegation of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has brought on record the opinion of Dr. L. P. Gupta, medical literature on PPH to the effect that had PPH managed efficiently the patient could have been save does not stand to reason in absence of any consideration by Mr. Gupta in his opinion for formulating his view. We do not find from his opinion what better could have done by O.P. in the condition of the patient at the given time. The medical literature brought on record of the principle of managing PPH specially post operative period has remained unexplained. No one has given the evidence on being of the complaint what was required to be done by the Doctor as per the procedure was not done. No such evidence on record. The complainant herself neither knew the medical subject nor could explain for such mere of allegation is of no legal consequence. The Civil Surgeon has submitted its report categorically stated that there is no medical negligence or deficiency in service. Since the fact of quashing of the crime complaint by the Hon''ble High Court mentioning in the report of the Civil Surgeon cannot be held on bias or dilutes the report. The decisions of any court in the relevant only when it files into the court corner of the facts of the case in question so as to attract the decisions."

This view dovetails from the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in " Martin F. D'' souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq ", 2009 CTJ 352 (Supreme Court) (CP). In that judgment, it has been observed as under:-

"41. A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another."

"49. When a patient dies of 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."

On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any fault with the impugned order, which may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.