Patient Dies Post Delivery Due to Heavy Bleeding: Consumer Court Slaps Hospital, Gynaecologist, Surgeon with Rs 5 lakh compensation

Taking note of the fact that the doctors had referred the patient to another hospital when the bleeding didn't stop, the Commission noted, "OPs gave wrong treatment to deceased. If position of the wife of the complainant is not a good then why they referred the patient, wife of the complainant to another hospital. The patient died due to negligence of the OPs. OPs failed to exercise their duty with reasonable and proper care and did not take precautions guarding against injury to the patient and breach of duty which was gross negligence caused the death of the patient."

The case concerned the complainant, who had taken his wife to the treating hospital during her delivery. He alleged that during the surgery, as the doctors hadn't given the patient any oxytocin injection, especially meant for contraction of the uterus, the uterus didn't contract and excessive bleeding started and ultimately they had to remove the Uterus.

Also Read: Patient Dies post Appendix Operation: Consumer Court Slaps Hospital, Surgeon with Rs 4 lakh Compensation

The next day, the doctors informed the complainant that the patient was to be referred to another hospital. As the condition of the patient kept deteriorating, she was admitted to another hospital in Ludhiana, where she died.

It had been alleged by the Complainant that his wife died due to criminal medical negligence of the treating doctors in failing to exercise their duty with reasonable and proper care due to breach of duty as a gross negligence. Thus, alleging medical negligence and the deficiency of service against the treating doctors and the hospital, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Court, Jalandhar praying for an amount of Rs 20 lakh as compensation.

On the other hand, the treating gynecologist and the hospital submitted that the patient had delivered the baby normally and no surgery had been conducted till the time when the uterus hadn't conducted. They also submitted that if after delivery the uterus contracts normally, the bleeding stops, however, this didn't happen in the case of the patient.

They also claimed that the best possible treatment was given to the patient and considering bleeding and non-contraction of uterus five units of blood were given to patient and medically as well as manually efforts were done to stop bleeding, but efforts failed.

After post partum Heamorrage was done, excessive bleeding occurs due to non-contraction of uterus not due to any medical negligence of the doctors, they contended.

Further, the treating surgeon denied all allegations and claimed that he was not working with the treating hospital when the treatment of the deceased patient was being carried out and that is why, no question of breach of duty arises against him.

The counsel appearing for the treating doctor and hospital any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and placed reliance on Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chander Nanda of State Commission Punjab Chandigarh reported in 2012, Chander Mohan Head Constable Vs. Preet Nursing Home and others reported in 2010(3), etc.

After listening to the contentions of both the parties, the Commission perused the medical reports relevant to the case. The Commission noted that even though the gynecologist has claimed that considering bleeding and non-contraction of uterus five units of blood were given to the patient and medically as well as manually efforts were done to stop bleeding, the CT scan report of the patient at the second hospital clearly mentioned that "No evidence of any extra-axial bleed seen."

Further the Commission took note of the fact that before the delivery that treating doctor had told the complainant to either save the child or the mother. "This is not good suggestion given by them to complainant," opined the Commission.

The Commission also took note of the fact that the treating hospital had referred the patient to another hospital and observed,

"OPs gave wrong treatment to deceased. If position of the wife of the complainant is not a good then why they referred the patient, wife of the complainant to another hospital. The patient died due to negligence of the OPs. OPs failed to exercise their duty with reasonable and proper care and did not take precautions guarding against injury to the patient and breach of duty which was gross negligence caused the death of the patient."

Referring to the judgments cited by the counsel for the doctors and the hospital, the Commission opined that those citations were not relevant in the present case.

"The OPs further denied deficiency in service on their part but deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was proved on the part of OPs. If condition of the wife of the complainant not good then why OPs Hospital referred her to another hospital for further treatment. This lapse on the part of Ops," noted the Commission.

Besides, the District Consumer Court also observed that the treating hospital and doctor hadn't produced any cogent evidence, valuable documents or diagnosis which were given to the patient on the record.

At this outset, the Commission referred to the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Parasnath S. Dhananka & Ors 2009 where the top court had clarified that once a complainant discharges the initial burden of the complaint upon hospital authorities, it was the responsibility of the latter to prove that there were no medical negligence on their part.

Further opining that the essential components of negligence are three: "duty", "breach" and "resulting damage", the Commission noted,

"The treatment given to patient by doctor based on liability of medical practitioner. There is an unwritten contract between the two. Patient entrust himself to doctor that doctor agrees to do his best at all times for patient. Such doctor-patient contract is almost always an implied contract except when written informed consent is obtained."

Opining that the principle of res ipsa loquitor is applicable in the present case, the Commission noted,

"From facts and circumstances of the case and going through the plethora of judgments cited above, the medical negligence is proved on the part of OPs."

Taking all the factors into consideration, the Commission directed the treating doctors and the hospital to pay Rs 5 lakh jointly and severally as compensation for mental harassment and physical harassment including the expenses, spent by the Complainant for treatment within a period of 45 days.

To read the Commission order, click n the link below.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/punjab-medical-negligence-162205.pdf

Also Read: Implanted Plate Gets Broken: Consumer Court holds Hospital liable for purchase, directs compensation