Skip to main content

Institute of Medicine & Law

Court accepts that medical science could be limited by technology

Court accepts that medical science could be limited by technology

The patient, a pregnant lady, was under the antenatal care of a gynaecologist. First USG was performed in the month of June; its findings were normal. Another USG performed in the month of January reported anomaly in the foetus.

Eventually, the patient delivered a baby suffering from hydrocephalus.

The mother was inconsolable; she dragged the gynaecologist to court.

The doctor submitted that USG was performed on different occasions from June to January. Only in the month of December, the anomaly was detected which was confirmed in USG performed in month of January.

The doctor further pointed out that when the foetus was detected with hydrocephalus, there was no treatment available. There was very little a doctor could do under such circumstances, concluded the gynaecologist. 

The Court accepted gynaecologist’s defence, and observed that she had followed standard protocol and had even referred the patient to a senior gynaecologist, at a higher centre, for a Level II USG scan, but the patient did not heed to the advice.

Given the circumstances, case against gynaecologist was dismissed.

Archives

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Empty CartYour cart is emptyReturn to Shop

    “Welcome to the ‘11th National Convention of Medicine & Law 2026’ as a registered delegate. We will keep you informed about the Convention as we move ahead. You will receive the link to attend the Convention, along with the necessary instructions, on Saturday, 26th September 2026.”

    “Thank you for sharing your views. Your contribution is important in shaping deliberations at the next Convention and will be carefully reviewed. We will contact you if we need any further information or clarification.”