T.VANI DEVI vs TUGUTLA LAKSHMI NARASAIAH NARASA

APPELLANTS , the two doctors and the Nursing Home, were the opposite parties before the State Commission.

THIS appeal arises out of a complaint filed by respondent-complainant alleging medical negligence on the part of the appellants which resulted in the death of his wife. State Commission on a complaint filed by the complainant held the appellants to be guilty of medical negligence and awarded in favour of the complainant Rs. 2.00 lakhs as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded as costs. Certain direction was also issued for withdrawal of the amount as the deceased had left minor daughter who was born at the time of delivery of the wife of the complainant resulting in her death. Smt. Prameela Devi was admitted in the Hospital of the Nursing Home of the third appellant on 4.6.1992 at about 12.30 a.m. Dr. T. Vani Devi, first appellant, after examining Prameela Devi stated that the delivery would be over within 5 to 6 hours. Later at about 7.00 a.m. Dr. Subba Rao, who is second appellant and husband of the first appellant stated that the baby was above normal size and a cesarean operation necessary. Shri K. Sundara Rami Reddy and his wife, parents of the deceased gave the written consent for the purpose. However, subsequently Dr. Vani Devi stated that there was no need for cesarean operation. At about 8.30 a.m. mother of the deceased and other neighbour who were present in the labour room were asked to go out. Dr. Vani Devi applied forceps and dragged out the baby with force. Immediately thereafter she left for Government Hospital to attend her duty being a Government employee. There was lot of bleeding at that time but the deceased was left unattended to till about noon when doctor in charge of the Nursing Home gave saline and some injections but that did not stop the bleeding. When at 12.00 noon Vani Devi returned from the Government Hospital she instead of coming to see the deceased who was still bleeding left for her house. It was only after when father of the deceased made repeated requests to her that Vani Devi came to see the deceased at about 2.00 p.m. but again went away without giving any treatment. Prameela Devi died at 4.00 p.m. that very day.

HER death was attributed to gross negligence on the part of the appellants. A complaint was made by the father of the deceased to the District Collector for necessary action against the negligence on the part of the appellants. It would appear both the appellants 1 and 2 had started Nursing Home but later on joined Government service, yet they continued to work for the Nursing Home and had appointed a doctor in charge of the Nursing Home. So they nevertheless continued to run the Nursing Home. It is stated that the first appellant has since been dismissed from service after enquiry. However, that is of no relevance to us.

APPELLANTS denied any negligence on their part. State Commission recorded evidence of the parties and after examining the matter in depth came to the conclusion that it was a case of medical negligence and awarded compensation and cost as aforesaid. It is not that much argument is needed to see that it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the appellants. They were extremely negligent in rendering proper medical service to the deceased. Forceps application though not out of date could not have been resorted to when baby was above normal size and papers had already been got signed for the appellants to perform cesarean. The application for forceps need lot expertise. Nothing has been shown as to what was the experience of the first appellant applying forceps delivery. State Commission did not find any fault with forceps delivery but says it was done in haste which caused the haemorrhage. It would appear that in her hurry to attend her Government duty appellants did not go for cesarean operation and forceps delivery was resorted to. There was profuse bleeding, no attempt was made whatsoever to stop the bleeding and Prameela Devi bled to death leaving a new born girl baby deprived of motherly love and husband of consortium of his wife. State Commission has rightly found that the Nursing Home, appellant No. 3 also deficient in service as it had no proper arrangements to meet any emergency and not properly equipped. No acceptable attempt was made to stop the bleeding.

WE do not think that it is necessary for us to further refer to the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that it was a case of acute deficiency in providing proper medical care to the patient. It is a case of certainly gross medical negligence. There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with cost which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-.