Counting on Medical Council report, Court exonerates doctor for performing Caesarean on patient
Bidar: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bidar has recently exonerated the District Medical Officer at the Government Hospital from the charges of medical negligence while performing a Caesarean operation on a patient.
Such a decision was taken by the Commission after it took note of the expert opinion by a team of doctors at the Karnataka Medical Council, which clearly mentioned in its report that there was no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors and the hospital.
The case goes back to 2015 when the patient went into labour and was taken to the Government Hospital Bidar at midnight. Even though the patient had severe labour pain and was bleeding, there were no doctors at the hospital, alleged the complainant.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that the next morning the treating doctor came and performed a Caesarean operation hurriedly and the staff put stitches without Anesthesia resulting in shivering and horrible pain.
Mentioning that she was admitted to the hospital for days, the patient further submitted that in the meantime, she developed infection due to the carelessness of the doctor and staff and was therefore advised to take further treatment at Osmania Hospital. However, it has further been alleged that she was discharged without reference letter and due to this, she couldn't get admitted in there and when she came back to the treating hospital, she was asked to get treatment at a private hospital.
Following this, an operation was conducted on the complainant and her uterus was removed due to infection.
Thus alleging medical negligence resulting in physical pain and mental agony, also loss of money and future possibility of having another child, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs 16 lakhs as compensation along with Rs 1 lakh towards damages and another Rs 1 lakh for mental tension.
On the other hand, the treating hospital remained exparte and the treating doctor contested the allegations.
Taking note of the order sheet and other documents enclosed by the complainant, the consumer court noted that they are not marked and even though some of the documents relate to about the health condition of the complainant, they are not consistent to relate with the averments of the complaint.
Further, the Commission after perusing the order sheet noted that both the counsel have referred to take opinion from the Karnataka Medical Council to analyze the entire case and to conclude whether any medical negligence occurred in the treatment of the complainant. The commission also noted that on 29.10.2018, the Karnataka Medical Council Bangalore sent a report stating that there was no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor and hospital.
Meanwhile, the counsel for the Complainant sought permission for the appointment of court Commissioner to record the evidence of the doctor, but this plea was rejected.
The Commission took note of the fact that the treating doctor was present before the commission on 07.02.2018 and she recorded in the order sheet that "owing to the condition of "Central placenta previa" of the complainant at the time of L.S.C.S of at the hospital, her condition was life threatening but by adequate treatment she had survived."
Apart from this, the medical council team of doctors opined,
"i. Central placenta previa with previous caesarean section is a high risk case which may be associated sometimes with placenta accrete and which needs peripartum hysterectomy.
ii. At the time of admission this patient was having anaemia which again is a high risk factor and she is prone for infection.
iii. The chances of sepsis is more in placenta previa because of operative interference, placenta site near to the vagina and anaemia and devitalized state of the patient."
The KMC report further mentioned,
"Emergency Caesarean section was performed in time for this patient which was necessary and adequate antibiotics and blood transfusion were given in the post operative period. Patient did not have any fever or tachycardia at the time of discharge except abdominal distention for which the surgical opinion was taken."
In fact, the report further stated that if the patient had not gone at request discharge, the doctors at the hospital would have performed the same laparotomy operation that was done later at the private hospital.
Taking note of the discussion and expert opinion of the Karnataka Medical Council, the Consumer Court dismissed the complaint.
To read the case order, click on the link below.
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.