Dr. Smt. T. Vani Devi And Ors. vs Tugutla Lakshmi Narasaiah @ ... on 2...

1 of 2

Main Search

Forums

Advanced Search

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1064145/

Disclaimer

Mobile View

Pedagogia Clinica
www.clinicalpedagogy.com

Scuola Int.le di Pedagogia Clinica Titolo per l'iscrizione Albo ANPEC

Get this document in PDF

Print it on a file/printer

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Dr. Smt. T. Vani Devi And Ors. vs Tugutla Lakshmi
Narasaiah @ ... on 25 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: I (2003) CPJ 180 NC
Bench: D W Member, R Rao, B Taimni
ORDER

User Queries
medical negligence
negligence
"medical negligence"
hospital
cpj
death
nursing home
"what is medical negligence"

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)

1. Appellants, the two doctors and the Nursing Home, were the opposite parties before the State
Commission.
2. 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.
3. Smt. Prameela Devi was admitted in the Hospital of the Nrusing 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 830 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 incharge of the Nursing Home
gave saline and some injections but that did not stop the bleeding. When at 12.00 noon Vani Devi

10/2/2013 6:50 PM

Dr. Smt. T. Vani Devi And Ors. vs Tugutla Lakshmi Narasaiah @ ... on 2...

2 of 2

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1064145/

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.
4. 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 incharge 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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/-.

10/2/2013 6:50 PM