Newborn suffers scalp crush injuries, detached ear pinna during Forceps Delivery: Gynaecologist slapped Rs 10 lakh compensation
Medical Negligence
New Delhi: Holding medical negligence during a forceps delivery that resulted in serious injuries to a newborn, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has slapped Rs 10 lakh compensation on a Nellore-based obstetrician and gynaecologist. However, the bench further reduced the compensation for mental agony from Rs 30 lakh to Rs 10 lakh, noting a lack of evidence directly linking the injuries to the child's subsequent mental disability.
The case involved a complaint by a patient who alleged that her baby suffered scalp crush injuries and a detached ear pinna during a forceps-assisted delivery on April 17, 2011. The injuries, she alleged, led to brain damage and mental disability, prompting her to seek redress for medical negligence and the resulting trauma.
The bench comprising presiding member Bijoy Kumar and member Justice Saroj Yadav, was hearing the appeal filed by Dr P Yashodhara challenging the March 2019 order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarding Rs 30 lakh as compensation to the complainant for mental agony, along with other costs, after holding the doctor guilty of medical negligence.
The patient was admitted to the doctor's hospital at Nellore on 16.04.2011 during an advanced stage of pregnancy. The next day, she gave birth to a child through forceps delivery performed by the doctor.
It was alleged that due to the negligence during the delivery, the baby suffered serious crush injuries to the scalp and necrosis, which later became necrotic. The right ear pinna was also crushed and detached. As a result of these injuries, the baby sustained brain damage and has become mentally disabled.
The complainant further stated that the child was taken to Childs Trust Hospital in Chennai for further treatment, where they incurred expenses of approximately Rs 4 lakh. The doctors at the hospital confirmed that the injuries were caused due to improper handling and negligence during the forceps delivery by the Appellant. The hospital issued medical reports and certificates supporting this finding.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the patient submitted that the doctor had conducted an ultrasound scan in her hospital, which showed the baby’s weight as 3.6 kg. The patient had requested a caesarean section surgery considering the size of the baby, but the doctor allegedly insisted on a forceps delivery. The gynaecologist took the patient's signatures on certain documents without properly informing her of the risks involved in a forceps delivery, the counsel added.
Therefore, alleging gross medical negligence by the doctor due to which the baby suffered severe injuries during the forceps delivery, the patient sought Rs 40 lakh compensation to the Complainant towards expenditure for the treatment of the baby, mental agony and loss suffered by her family.
The doctor denied the allegations and 'specifically denied that the baby suffered any brain injury or became mentally retarded due to the delivery conducted by her'. She stated that she had no knowledge about the patient admitting the child in CHILDS Trust Hospital, Chennai, and denied the claim that Rs. 4,00,000/- was spent on medical treatment.
"It is also a fact that the hospital obtained the consent for carrying out the surgery. However, a perusal of the consent form indicates that no specific mention of carrying out such procedure mentioned. The word used is “permission for doing operation for the sickness” (‘jabbu’). Evidently, the consent is vague and appears to be a pre-printed form which has been used in a routine manner. It cannot be called an informed consent."
The commission, however, said that it was difficult to correlate the injuries suffered on the scalp with the subsequent "mental retardation" suffered by the boy as no evidence for it was submitted. It said,
"On the question whether the operation should have been done through caesarean section or not and whether forceps should have been used or not, cannot be commented upon as this is the discretion of the treating surgeon/gynaecologist, who would have taken the procedure as deemed fit in the given circumstances. However, the fact remains that the baby suffered certain injuries on his scalp and perichondritis of the ears which is evidenced by the discharge summary of the second hospital wherein the boy was admitted for further treatment. We would not like to rely on the document submitted by the Respondent (patient) regarding disability suffered by the baby since the same has been filed at the time of the Appeal and was not part of the State Commission’s Order. It would be difficult to correlate the injuries suffered on the scalp with the subsequent mental retardation suffered by the boy as no evidence for and against has been produced by either party. Therefore, we are not relying on the disability certificate submitted by the Respondent."
The apex court bench held medical negligence by the doctor.
"The fact remains that the baby had to be taken to another hospital in Chennai for further treatment. There is an injury on the scalp and perichondritis of the ears which has been confirmed by the discharge summary of the second hospital which has not been contradicted by the Appellant. The State Commission has gone into detail and given a well-reasoned Order and we find no illegality in holding the Appellant doctor responsible for the injury caused on the scalp of the baby, which had necessitated further treatment in another hospital. Thus, medical negligence is established."
"There is a stay of around one and a half months in Chennai for the treatment in the second hospital. For this period, the amount of Rs 10 lakh as compensation would be in order considering the quantum of injury and the gravity of negligence in using forceps."
The commission also directed payment of Rs 72,530 for the treatment expenses and Rs 50,000 for litigation costs.
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.