A pregnant patient was under regular antenatal follow up with her gynaecologist. However, she was not available on the day of delivery.
The patient was taken in an emergency condition at a hospital where the general surgeon had to perform C-section in order to save the baby and mother. A healthy boy was delivered but unfortunately, the patient suffered Pre-Eclampsia Toxemia (PET) and slipped into coma.
The patient was taken to another hospital but her condition showed no improvement.
Her aggrieved husband sued the general surgeon and blamed him for the undesired outcome. It was alleged that his wife became comatose due to negligence while administering anaesthesia and performing surgery.
The doctor rebutted these allegations and stated that the patient was brought with full term pregnancy from as far as forty kilometres in a pathetic condition. Her husband was informed about unavailability of an anaesthetist at the time but he insisted for surgery.
The doctor further stated that the patient was found to be suffering from PET at the operating table. She suffered convulsions and appropriate measures were taken but her condition needed better care and hence she was referred to a higher centre, concluded the surgeon.
This case was sent to an expert medical body for their opinion. It was observed that:
- The doctor was a qualified Surgeon (MS) and had clear talks with relatives at 8:45 PM, and after taking consent he conducted emergency operation under local anaesthesia without delay, because of non-availability of anaesthetist at that time. He acted with intention to save the life of mother and baby
- As per medical records, proper medicines were prescribed. The patient with PET may suffer convulsion attacks prior to operation, during operation and post-operatively also. Due to repeated attacks the patient may go in coma
- The cause of coma appears to be hypoxic brain injury due to repeated shocks
The Commission took into consideration the aforementioned report and agreed that the surgeon performed emergency C-section in order to save the patient and her baby, hence it was not medical negligence. Moreover, he acted as per accepted standard protocol even post-operatively.
The case against doctor was dismissed.
Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 23rd January, 2023.