SHIV GOPAL vs Sudha Gupta

BY means of this complaint, the complainant has claimed damages worth Rs. 9 lacs alongwith 24% p.a. compound interest against the opposite parties. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under :

THE deceased Smt. Anita Khattar was the wife of the complainant and on account of negligence in treatment of the opposite parties, she died on 14.12.1991. On 27.5.1991 the deceased had suspected pregnancy and for proper care during the pregnancy, the complainant alongwith his wife visited the clinic of opposite party No. 1 and continued treatment under her guidance for about 8 months. She was guided in the daily routine by the advice of opposite party No. 1. On 14.12.1991 opposite party No. 1 referred the wife of the complainant to consult opposite party No. 2 and on the same day consultation was done with opposite party No. 2. On the same day the wife of the complainant died at the place of opposite party No. 2 during the treatment. THE delivery could also not be made in a normal way and the foetus also died alongwith Smt. Anita Khattar. She died on account of gross negligence, misbehaviour and wrong advice of opposite parties. THE wrong advice was intentionally given by the opposite party. On 27th May, 1991, clear view test was done of Smt. Anita Khattar and her blood pressure was found to be 110/70 and weight was 47 kgs. On the next visit, on 31st May, 1991, Smt. Anita Khattar again went to the clinic of opposite party No. 1 and complained about her ailments but no noting was made on the treatment card and nothing abnormal was written on it. On that date also gross negligence was shown by opposite party No. 1 and late Smt. Khattar was advised complete bed rest. She was also advised to take Tab. Gestamine, Tab. Laptadine and Tab. Folic Acid. She took complete rest in bed and also took the medicines. Before that date, there was no indication of any abortion to the deceased Smt. Anita Khattar. There was also no bleeding and no such indications were noted by the opposite party No. 1. The advice of total rest and consumption of Tab. Gestamine was not required and it was a wrong advise on account of which Smt. Anita Khattar and her child died. Tab. Gestamine is given only to patients who are susceptible to abortion and had previous history of abortion. The deceased had no previous record of abortion and never had any bleeding. Opposite party No. 1 is a famous Gynaecologist in the city and as such he reposed complete faith in her. On account of Tab. Gestamine, the deceased had met this fate. Tab. Gestamine is given only when there is a shortage of progestrone hormones, but in the prescription of opposite party No. 1, there was no indication of shortage of progestrone harmones. Tab. Laptadine is a non-specific drug and was completely prohibited on the symptoms which the deceased had.

When on 26th June, 1991 check up was got done, the deceased had complained about cough and breathlessness. Opposite party No. 1 did not do any clinical examination either by herself or through somebody else. She gave corex cough syrup. The weight of the deceased was found to be 50 kgs. Again on 3rd August, 1991, opposite party No. 1 did not attend to the complaints of the deceased. She was examined for Haemoglobin level and for venereal disease. There was no need for the above tests, but it was got done in order to benefit the Pathologist. Thereafter on 3.9.1991 another examination was done and found that the blood pressure was at 110/90 and weight 50 kgs. The weight remained stationary. Corex cough syrup was continued. On 22.10.1991, the check-up was again done and weight of 5 kgs. was increased which was unnatural. There was swelling in the body also. There was cough and breathlessness also on that date, but no attention was paid by opposite party No. 1. The deceased was prescribed Erythromycin tablet and Benadryl cough syrup. She was advised for TLC/DLC tests.

AGAIN on 14.11.1991 on examination, blood pressure of Smt. Anita Khattar was found to be 130/96 and the weight had increased to 57 kgs. In such a condition, urine examination was necessary and prefomin and sign diagnosis was to be got done. Tab. Dytide and Dyoretics was given for increasing discharge of urine. These medicines could have harmful effects on the pregnancy. These medicines were used and they caused damage to the child and the deceased, who was not properly attended to. On 29.11.1991 there was lot of swelling and heart beat of child was felt. The weight at that time was 53 kgs. Only. On the fateful day, i.e. 14.12.1991 the clinic of opposite party No. 1 was visited by the deceased at 10 a.m. where the deceased complained of breathlessness and cough. No examination to diagnose this condition was done by opposite party No. 1. Testing of Haemoglobin, blood sugar and blood urea was got done on account of breathlessness. On account of deficiency of haemoglobin there could have been cardiovascular changes and there could have been enlargement of heart. There could have been heart failure. Protein was detected in the urea. The complainant insisted for proper treatment of the deceased but no attention was paid by opposite party No. 1. On the same day, on the advice of opposite party No. 1, the deceased Smt. Anita Khattar was taken to the nursing home of opposite party No. 2. She was not advised to be taken on ambulance but she was taken by the complainant all the way on scooter. After the arrival at the clinic of opposite party No. 2, opposite party No. 2 also showed negligence in attending to the deceased. According to opposite party No. 2 the deceased Smt. Anita Khattar was suffering from anaemia and there was no pulse. The Haemoglobin was 9.2 gms. On account of this, heart attack could not have happened. There was systolic murmur in the heart of the deceased but she was not examined for this purpose. An ECG was done by opposite party No. 2 of the deceased and it showed that there was Hypertrophy of right ventricle. Injection Mephentin was administered to the deceased and Dopandrip drip was started. Inj. Lasix and Inj. Digoxine was also administered to the lady. The treatment given by opposite party No. 2 was not proper and he treated negligently. On account of Inj. Digoxine there was side effects and Arrhythmia could have developed. After this, deceased''s condition further deteriorated. On account of the negligence of the opposite parties, the wife of complainant died on 14.12.1991 for which the claim has been preferred.

IN written version, opposite party No. 1 has denied the case of the complainant with respect to negligence and had alleged that previously complainant and his deceased wife had consulted Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate INstitute, Lucknow for the fact that the deceased could not conceive. When the complainant came alongwith his wife and in order to avoid abortion, it was necessary to prescribe certain medicines. The deceased Smt, Anita Khattar remained an OPD patient and did not get her admitted in her Nursing Home. The records or the patient is kept on prescription pad which is given to the patient. The history of deceased was written. As per entry dated 27.5.1991 made on her pad, it is clear that she complained of spotting on 13th day from the last menstrual circle. Clear view test was got done for pregnancy which showed negative, but as this test has only 80% accuracy, on seeing the spotting, medicine for abortion was prescribed. She was advised bed rest but she did not do so. Her spotting continued and she came on 31st May, 1991 to the clinic of opposite party No. 1. Check-up was done. To prevent abortion, Folic acid tonic and to help in pregnancy, Loptadin tab. were given. These medicines are prescribed in pregnancy and they are Ayurvedic preparations and has no side effects. On 26th June, 1991 when deceased again came, she complained of spotting which showed that Gestamine and other medicines were not continued and complete bed rest as advised was not taken. She had cough, but blood pressure was normal. For cough she was advised TLC/ DLC which showed normal and then corex cough syrup and previous prescription medicines were advised. Ultrasound was advised to confirm pregnancy. On 3.8.1991 when the deceased was again examined, there was no weight gain and foetus growth was slow. She was put on watch. Gestamine is a hormone, lowering of which was advised as it is not to be stopped altogether. She was advised several other tests which were not got done for one month.

ON 3.9.1991 no complaint of spotting was there. There was no weight again. Ultrasound was advised to ascertain the size and growth of foetus. Progesterone harmone is not formed by placenta till about 9th week of pregnancy, hence gestamine was prescribed which is progesterone harmone and was lowered. She was advised complete bed rest and to come on 3.10.1991.

INSTEAD of 3.10.1991 she came on 22.10.1991. There was triple oedema as whole body was swollen. DLC / TLC was advised which was normal. She was given Protinex, haemoglobin was 10.4 gms. The swelling was due to iron and protein deficiency and mall nutrition. She was advised admission in Nursing Home, but she refused and left against medical advice. The deceased was advised to come on 22.11.1991 for tetanus toxide immunization. She came earlier on 14.11.1991. Blood pressure was normal and she gained weight by 2 kgs. There was beginning of Eclamptic toxaemia,, hence she was advise salt and fat free diet. She was also advised bed rest and admission. Admission was refused by her relatives and consequences of the same were explained and admission was advised by 19.11.1991. Due to swelling, Dytide was prescribed daily at 8 a.m.

She again came on 29.11.1991. Blood pressure was normal. Foetus was found in normal condition.

SHE came on 14.12.1991 though called on 13.12.1991. SHE complained of oedema and breathlessness but haemoglobin was 9.2% which was low. Her breathlessness started to increase which was damages signal. SHE was advised for consultation by cardiac expert, opposite party No. 2. SHE delayed her examination by an hour. On telephone call she went to opposite party No. 2''s clinic. SHE was in eighth month which is dangerous. Her health appeared to be due to rare acute cardiac condition during pregnancy. The medicines which were prescribed to her were to be prescribed in the circumstances and on the facts of the case. As the life was in danger, hence she was referred to the clinic of Dr. Satish Chandra, opposite party No. 2. The treatment had been on prescribed lines and opposite party No. 2 took all reasonable precaution and was not negligent in treatment. All these tests, which were necessary, were got conducted. She could not even be diagnosed as a heart case but her sudden collapse would be congestive heart failure or pulmonary embolism (clotting in lung).

OPPOSITE party No. 2, Dr. Satish Chandra, in a separate written statement has also contested the case of the complainant and alleged that Mrs. Anita Khattar, wife of the complainant came to the answering opposite party No. 1 at 10.45 a.m. on 14.11.1991. Before she arrived, a telephone call was received from opposite party No. 1 that a very serious patient was reaching and she requires immediate attention. When the patient arrived, the answering opposite party No. 2, on examination, found that she was pale, had marked breathlessness, pulselessness at wrist as well as it cubital fossa and that blood pressure was not recordable. She was having marked Oedema feet (swollen feet), Heart rate was 126-130 and the heart showed triple of rhythm, which is a sign of failing heart. Neck veins were full. Lungs were having creptitations all over the chest, i.e. marked congestion in lungs indicating accumulation of water in lungs. She was having soft systolic murmer all over the heart, more marked at the apex. Her liver was 2 fingers palpable and tender, i.e. she was a full-fledged and evident picture of congestive heart failure, in very low general condition. The complainant and other persons accompanying the patient were told that the condition of the patient was very serious and she had very remote chance of survival if any. It was also told that answering opposite party was reluctant to take the patient at that stage as it was a hopeless case and only a miracle could have saved her. This fact was informed to opposite party No. 1, Dr. Sudha Gupta, who requested to take up the case. Thereafter on the request of complainant and others with the patient, the answering opposite party started treatment of the patient for her survival because it was not possible for her at that stage to reach any other hospital. The entire staff was involved in the treatment of the patient. The best possible treatment was given to the patient and she was put on oxygen and intravenous drip was started in the vein which was hardly visible. She was given 1 ml. Of Mephentin I. V. and Dopamine 2 amp. Were also added in the bottle of 5% glucose drip. The ECG was also recorded which showed sinus tachycardia. Thereafter the patient was given one amp. Of Efcorlin and 2 amp. Of Lasix intravenously Dr. Sudha Gupta, opposite party No. 1, put in a Foleys Catheter in the urinary bladder to see if patient starts forming urine. The patient was already on Cardiac Monitor from the very beginning. At 11.15 p.m. the pulse was still not palpable and the blood pressure was also not recordable. Heart rate had risen to 140 per minute. Efforts were made to lower the heart rate and therefore 1 ml. Lanoxin (Digoxin) was diluted in 10 ml. 5% glucose was slowly given intravenously. At 12.30 noon the heart rate rose to 144 per minute and the condition was the same. No urine had formed and the oxygen was continued. Even at 1.30 p.m. the condition remained same, she had breathlessness and no urine came out of catheter. At about 2.30 p.m. her heart rate had risen to 190 per minute and in the ECG there was supra ventricular arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation). It was felt that the heart was failing and she may collapse on account of rise of heart rate so immediately 1 ml. (0.25 mg.) Lanoxin (Digoxin) was given slowly diluting in 10 ml. 5% glucose to lower the heart rate. The heart rate did not come down and the patient collapsed at 3.30 p.m. Ultimately she expired at 3.45 p.m. the same day. It is wrong to say that the opposite party did not take any blood pressure. There was no negligence or delay in attending the patient. It is mentioned by the complainant that he had reached the Nursing Home, with the patient, of the opposite party No. 2 at 10.45 a.m. The complainant had also admitted that ECG was taken at 10.45 a.m. immediately after her admission and oxygen etc. were started.

AT the time of admission, the patient was pulseless and was pale and Haemoglobin was 9.2 gms.% as per report of opposite party No. 1. The patient was an evident case of congestive heart failure and pulselessness. The ECG had shown right ventricular hypertrophy. The Haemoglobin level also aggrevated the heart failure in diseased heart. Exact cause of congestive heart failure could have been established either after her recovery or from post-mortem. The drugs name Lasix and Lanoxin are very much indicated alongwith Dopamine and these are the only medicines which could have saved the patient. To make an attempt to decrease load on heart by reducing blood volume, thus making its contractions more effective, which in turn would have raised the blood pressure. These drugs also drain water from the lungs resulting in better oxygenation of blood and thus increasing the efficiency of heart and kidney and also decreased the heart rate. The fall of blood pressure was not due to administration of Lasix. In the written statement some citations have been given from the books and other details for treatment of patient and such cases have been reproduced and the effects of medicines administered were referred.

IN the replication, against the written statement of opposite party No. 2 Dr. Satish Chandra, it is wrongly alleged that it is wrongly mentioned that it was difficult for Smt. Anita Khattar to be saved when she reached the clinic of opposite party No. 2 and she was not in a position to be admitted to the hospital. The patient had reached the clinic of opposite party No. 2 from the Nursing Home of opposite party No. 1 on scooter and walked down to the gate of opposite party No. 2. This distance covered by her was about 100 ft. No special disease was mentioned by opposite party No. 2 in the prescription. Only copy of ECG was given to the deceased''s husband. The patient was not having shock as mentioned by opposite party No. 2. The blood pressure falls down due to administration of Lasix. The opposite party No. 2 lowered the blood pressure which was a sign of negligence. In the additional written statement opposite party No. 1 has alleged that it is incorrect to say that since 21.1.1991, the deceased was regularly being attended by opposite party No. 1. A prescription pad entry of 21.1.1991 supports the earlier statement of opposite party No. 1. The patient consulted other doctors for her pre-conception problems. In the report of clear view test, the result is indicated as negative but if the specimen is allowed to settle down for a period of two hours then it shows positive. The entry on prescription pad of 27th May, 1991 record shows as negative which may have been corrected as positive on 31.5.1991. Dr. A.M. Gupta, Pathologist had collected the samples from the room. Gestamin and Leptaden are both altogether safe medicines. Its effect is supported by opinions of other doctors.

It was reiterated that in pregnancy period the patient was not put to complete rest as advised. She was asked to be admitted on 22.10.1991, but the same was not done. That on 14.11.1991 the deceased was required to be admitted but no compliance was made. The consequences were explained by answering opposite party to the patient. The complainant never came in time but came for further treatment on the date advised but came later. She had complained about cough and she was given treatment for the same.

BREATHLESSNESS was reported for the first time on 14.12.1991 when she visited the clinic of opposite party. Even ladies with previous heart condition have been delivered with safe and healthy mother but occurrence of cough if told earlier, would have been attended earlier. The responsibilities lie with complainant and not with the answering opposite party No. 1. In the replication, the complainant has reiterated the allegations stated in the complaint. It is alleged that it is wrong to say that on the part of opposite party No. 2 to state that the condition of Smt. Anita Khattar, the deceased, was such that she was not in a position to be taken to any other hospital or Nursing Home. As a matter of fact she was taken from the Nursing Home of opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 on scooter of the complainant and had walked upto the Nursing Home. She also covered a distance of 100 metres inside the Nursing Home. It is also wrong to say that the condition of the deceased was such that she could not have been saved because opposite party No. 2 had not written any such thing in the prescription. Opposite party No. 2, who had immediately checked the condition of Smt. Anita Khattar, had made available to the complainant only a copy of ECG. Hence he was negligent in providing the services. This fact has also been controverted by the complainant that opposite party No. 2 has wrongly written that the pulse of the deceased was not palpable when she reached there. According to opposite party No. 2, 2 amp. of Lasix was given by injection to the deceased. On account of this medicine, the blood pressure dropped, thus the treatment given by opposite party No. 2 was contrary to his own findings. About half an hour before being examined by opposite party No. 2, the deceased had passed urine at the clinic of opposite party No. 1. This fact was not enquired into and within half an hour the formation of urine was not possible.

IN reply to the replication, opposite party No. 2 has filed a rejoinder affidavit stating therein that the contents of the replication are wrong. Opposite party No. 1, Dr. Sudha Gupta had rang him up and that a very serious patient is being referred to him and she should be admitted immediately. On reaching clinic of opposite party No. 2 when she was examined, she was found to be pulseless and blood pressure was not recordable. She was in a very low state which fact was clearly told to the complainant and the mother-in-law of the deceased, opposite party No. 1 was also informed on phone and she requested for immediate start of the treatment so that the patient may be saved. IN the meantime Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Gupta also reached there. The certificate of that which has been filed by the complainant were issued immediately after the death of the deceased on the same date and the rest allegations to the contrary are false. It is not within the knowledge of Opposite party No. 2 as to how the deceased reached the clinic of opposite party No. 2, The condition of the patient got deteriorated after she left the clinic of Dr. Sudha Gupta, opposite party No. 1. Mephentin and Dopamine drips were given which are given only in case of severe stroke or blood pressure is dangerously low. Lasix which was given later on could not lower the blood pressure as already explained. When she was examined, she had breathlessness, cough, lungs were full of water, thereby restricting oxygenation of blood and further decreasing efficiency of the heart. Lasix was given which was the only scientific course upon at that time because after the formation of the urine, the condition of the patient would have improved. The congestive heart failure was due to marked retention of water in the body and lung. Lasix was prescribed from time to time as there was swelling on the body of the deceased. Thereafter the medicine was stopped when the symptom disappeared. Lasix lowers blood pressure only when excessive urine is formed, while in the present case no urine passed even after half an hour. The urine comes out continuously when the catheter is passed at an approximate rate of 1 ml./minute which increases after administration of Lasix injection. At that time no other investigation than ECG was possible. Only the time would have been wasted if X-rays etc. was prescribed. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence on record.

DURING the course of argument learned Counsel for the complainant was put a question by the Commission to pin-point the negligence of opposite party No. 2 in the treatment. The evidence on record shows that as soon as the deceased reached the clinic of opposite party No. 2, she was attended to by opposite party No. 2 and in the meantime opposite party No. 1, who was treating the patient previously, also came down and helped opposite party No. 2 in the treatment. The evidence also showed that opposite party No. 2 made all possible attempts to save the patient inspite of the fact that the condition of the patient was very low, there was no pulse, the blood pressure was not recordable and there was congestion in the lungs also. The breathlessness was there and the heart rate was rising rapidly which could not be controlled by the medicines administered by opposite party No. 2. This shows that the condition of the deceased was very serious and opposite party No. 2 had done his best to save the life of the patient even though he had disclosed it to the relations accompanying the deceased including the complainant that it is a hopeless case and the life of the patient cannot be saved. Inspite of this state of health, the opposite party No. 2 did his best in order to save the condition of the patient and to uphold the tradition of medical ethics by attending to the patient even though there was practically no chance of revival of the patient. When faced with all these facts and evidence on record, the learned Counsel for the complainant had to concede that the complainant could not prove the negligence on the part of opposite party No. 2 in providing service to the deceased.

THEREFORE on the basis of evidence on record and the statement of the learned Counsel for the complainant, we hold that opposite party No. 2 was not guilty of deficiency in service rendered by him to the deceased, wife of the complainant. Now we examine whether the opposite party No. 1, Dr. Sudha Gupta was in any way responsible for the death of the patient and did not provide medical service to the deceased which were required to her.

A number of prescriptions have been filed by the complainant as well opposite party No. 1 in order to show the line of treatment adopted by opposite party No. 1. Now we deal with those prescriptions and other available evidence on record. According to the case of complainant with the start of pregnancy, he consulted opposite party No. 1 for normal delivery.

THE first prescription is dated 20.4.1991. At that time the blood pressure was 110/70 and the weight was 47 kgs. Clear view test was prescribed. In this prescription it was also been written that spotting since 20.5.1991 and the patient has 25 days cycle. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that previously the conception was not possible and it was only possible on treatment of husband of the deceased (sic.).. We are not concerned about the history of the complainant before the case was taken up by opposite party No. 1. In this prescription also in clear test view, the word ''negative'' was written which was later on scored out and ''positive'' was indicated meaning thereby the deceased had pregnancy. According to opposite party No. 1 the conception took place somewhere in the month of April. THEreafter the patient was examined on 31.5.1991. At that time she was prescribed Gestamine Folic Acid tab and Leptaden tab. She was also advised complete bed rest. At that time the weight had increased to 50 kgs. and blood pressure was 110/70. She was also prescribed Corex cough syrup. She was then to come on 26.6.1991. THEreafter the patient was examined on 3.8.1991 and Becosule and Folvite Forte were also prescribed alongwith previous three medicines. THE blood pressure was 110/70 and the uterus was palpable. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 had argued that Gestamine was prescribed on account of spotting. Thereafter the patient was examined on 3.9.1991. Blood pressure was same and the weight also remained at 50 kgs. Thereafter she was advised to come on 3.10.1991 but the patient turned up on 22.10.1991 when Triple oedema was present. Blood pressure was 120/70 and the weight was 55 kgs. She was advised, according to opposite party No. 1, admission but she left against the medical advice and did not got her admitted. On 22.11.1991 Tetanus injection was to be given but she came on 14.11.1991. At that time the blood pressure was 130/96 and the weight was 57 kgs. On that date Fefol Cap., Becosule, Protinex and Dytide were prescribed. She was advised bed rest; no fat or salt was to be taken. It is also written that she was advised consequences of non-admission and for not taking bed rest. According to opposite party No. 2, the patient did not get herself admitted. If the condition did not improve, then she was advised to come on 19.11.1991, but she came on 29.11.1991. At that time blood pressure was 110/80 and the weight was 53 kgs. There was increased swelling also. Weight loss was observed on that date. Thereafter she was called on 13.12.1991 but she came a day later on 14.11.1991. There was breathlessness and oedema. The blood pressure was 110/80 and the weight was 55 kgs. She was given medicines and also Dytide was to continue. According to opposite party No. 1 the condition of the deceased improved after the blood spotting which was stopped on account of the medication but as she did not act according to the advice of the doctor, her condition deteriorated. For the first time on 14.11.1991 the deceased had complained of breathlessness and before that breathlessness was not reported.

DURING the course of arguments it was argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 that had the patient heeded to the advice of Dr. Sudha Gupta and would have taken complete bed rest after admission, then her condition would have improved and normal delivery could have been expected. According to learned Counsel the condition to which the deceased reached was of her own creation by not taking complete bed rest because in the present case there was a tendency of abortion which was reflected due to spotting. This contention of opposite party No. 1 is correct because in such cases where there are chances of abortion, the patient has to take a lot of care in retaining the conception. The eighth month is specially very important and critical in all pregnancies, very particularly in the cases where abortion is threatened. The patient has to take complete bed rest and has to be very cautious during 8th month which is more dangerous and precious from the point of view of pregnancy. Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that no specific drugs were prescribed by opposite party No. 1. According to him Gestamin Tab. causes contraction of urine. He has also argued that bed rest which was advised was not correct because there was no bleeding. According to him Gestamin Tabs are prescribed, only when hormone deficiency is there and no test was got conducted in order to determine the deficiency of hormone. He has further argued that Leptadin tab. is an Ayurvedic medicine and is non-specific medicine and is indicated in those cases were tendency to abortion is present. He has further argued that Corex was given which is an Ayurvedic preparation. This should not have been given. Some literature has been brought on record to show about these medicines which are Ayurvedic in nature. Annexure-I is attached to the affidavit dated 16.4.1993 filed by opposite party No. 1. This Annexure shows that gestamine is indicated in threatened abortions, habitual abortions and threatened pre-mature labour. The literature also shows that it does not have any hormonal side effects. It is also mentioned that administration of Gestamine in combination with bed rest can prevent the threatened abortion in early pregnancy or stop threatened pre-mature labour. It is also mentioned that there are no contra indications. With regard to Leptadine, it is mentioned that it is given in threatened abortion and allied conditions. It helps pregnancy to proceed to full term. Therefore, the literature shows that both these medicines though they are Ayurvedic preparations, are prescribed in the cases of threatened abortions and pre-mature labour. As is evident from the record, which shows there was spotting, which means that abortion can take place, these medicines were given by doctors. There is nothing on record to show that these medicines had any adverse effects on the pregnancy and these medicines were in any way responsible for the condition which developed on 14.11.1991 when the patient died. According to opposite party No. 1, congestive heart failure was a spontaneous occurrence and in such case it was not possible to save the patient and only a miracle could save the patient.

ACCORDING to learned Counsel for complainant, Lasix was not to be given by the Doctors when condition of the patient was deteriorating. The literature shows that these medicines are given for treatment of acute and chronic heart failure and to mobilise oedema and to relieve symptoms of Dyspnea. Nothing has been shown by the complainant as to how these medicines would have affected the condition of the patient and these medicines were the cause of death of the wife of the complainant.

THUS from the records it is clear that the administration of Ayurvedic medicines and Lasix was made by the doctors on account of the peculiar condition of the patient and not otherwise. The symptoms existed and these medicines were indicated on the symptoms present in the deceased and as a matter of fact the Ayurvedic preparations had prevented the abortion and the spotting was also cured. It is for the doctors to see on the basis of clinical examination and the pathological reports received as to which medicine is to be administered. In the present case the complainant has failed to show that the medicines prescribed or administered by opposite party No. 1 was in any way responsible for the death of the patient. It has further been argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that there was no need to prescribe bed rest and even on prescription it is not written how much bed rest was needed. When the doctor has prescribed bed rest, it means that bed rest is to be taken till the doctor advises that the patient is now fit to leave the bed but when the deceased did not comply with the instructions of the doctor and did not take bed rest, how can complaint be made that the period of bed rest was not indicated. The period of bed rest depends on the condition of the patient and when the doctor finds that the improvement which was to be achieved by bed rest has been achieved, then the doctor has to advise whether the bed rest is to be continued or not and what activities can a patient undertake. The complainant could not have judged as to whether any bed rest was required or not. The argument by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the treatment prescribed caused death of the deceased is not supported by any medical literature but on the contrary medical record shows otherwise. Dytide was prescribed by doctor only in order to cure her swelling and when the swelling subsided, opposite party No 1 discontinued this line of treatment and again prescribed these medicines when swelling was observed. The breathlessness for the first time was noticed on 14.11.1991 by the complainant and opposite party No. 1. Before that this condition was not reported. Therefore it shows that this breathlessness developed sometime before 14.11.1991 or the previous day on which the patient had consulted opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 took all necessary precautions and prescribed medicines according to the symptoms of the patient. There is nothing on record to suggest that opposite party No. 1 had prescribed medicines which were not indicated according to the condition of the patient prevailing at that time or that it injuriously affected the health of the patient. Thus on the basis of entire evidence on record we find that the complainant has not been able to prove that opposite party No. 1 Dr. Sudha Gupta was negligent in rendering service to the complainant. Hence the complaint fails. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their cost. Let copies be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint dismissed. _______________