Abstract:

The Complainant, Resham Bhargava, about 27 years of age (‘the patient’) during her first pregnancy visited Mata Chanan Hospital – O.P. No.1 at New Delhi. The O.P. No.3 – Dr. Seema Saxena, Gynaecologist examined her and advised her for regular antenatal check-up (ANC). Her periodic blood tests and ultrasound were performed and the reports were found normal.  On 10.07.2016, O.P. No. 3 admitted the patient in O.P. No. 1 hospital.  On the next day at 11.15 a.m. O.P. No. 3 Dr. Seema Saxena told her that due to presence of bone in delivery pathway, normal delivery was not possible and therefore she needs surgical delivery (Lower Segment Caesarean Section – ‘LSCS’).  

However, while shifting the patient from operation theatre to the ward, the patient experienced severe pain, weakness and blurred vision. Same was informed to O.P. No. 3 – Dr. Seema Saxena, who assured that everything was normal and there was nothing to worry.  After few minutes the patient was unable to breath and immediately O.P. No. 3 doctor was called who examined the patient and told her husband that such condition might be due to bleeding inside and there was need to open the abdomen again. Therefore, the husband of the complainant had signed some documents and within 15 minutes the critical patient was operated by O.P. No. 3.

The operation consumed several hours, but her husband was kept in dark about the happenings. It was when the patient’s husband threatened to take legal action against the Opposite Parties, only then the doctor disclosed that uterus of the patient was removed and approx. 1.5 litres of blood was present in the abdomen.

It was alleged that patient was operated with the help of more than 10 doctors. After the second surgery the patient was kept in ICU from 11.07.2016 to 17.07.2016.  The emergency hysterectomy, as a standard treatment, was performed to save the life of the patient. The precious life of a mother and baby was saved at O.P. No. 1 hospital and on 18.07.2016, the patient was discharged in satisfactory condition.

The patient paid a huge amount of Rs. 210000/- towards the medical bills. The complainant / patient alleged that due to removal of the uterus, she lost her chance to give birth to a child in future and it was due to carelessness and gross negligence of the Opposite Parties. She filed a complaint against the Opposite Parties and prayed for compensation of Rs. 11000000/-. [Para 1]

NCDRC observed that the dispute relates to the alleged medical negligence and the two main allegations against the OPs are that

1. Whether LSCS was performed hastily without consent?
2. Whether hysterectomy was caused due to the carelessness of the opposite parties?

The emergency caesarean hysterectomy was performed with the help of a surgeon, Dr. J. S. Gulati. In NCDRC’s considered view this decision of O.P. No. 3 was correct and the emergency was handled as per standards. NCDRC relied on medical literature, medical record and case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Martin D’Souza V Mohd. Ishfaque, 2009 on the issue of medical negligence. NCDRC concluded that based on the foregoing discussion, relying on the standard medical literature, it is not feasible to attribute negligence / deficiency in treatment given in both performing LSCS and the emergency exploratory laparotomy for subtotal hysterectomy, it is difficult to conclusively establish medical negligence / deficiency in service. The complaint fails, and is dismissed. [Para 11]