P.M. Examination and Medical Negligence
SC Division Bench placed reliance on P.M. Examination Report in a Medical Negligence Case decided in Appeal and Exonerated Doctor of Medical Negligence by endorsing NCDRC Judgment
After the operation, Priya Malhotra was removed to the recovery room where she allegedly told the appellant by gestures that she was having severe pain in the chest and she was speechless and having breathing difficulty. Dr. A. Kriplani observed that there was no need to worry and Priya Malhotra would be kept in I.C.U for two days under observation.
On 12.08.1989, Priya Malhotra was shifted to 3rd floor of the hospital. According to the appellant, Priya Malhotra started becoming semi-conscious and erratic in behaviour.
On 20.08.1989, Priya Malhotra developed intestinal fistula leading to her throwing out liquid from her body and she developed serious infections septicemia.
On 22.08.1989, Priya Malhotra became deep unconscious and she passed no urine and her face was swollen. On 23.08.1989, Dr. A. Kriplani advised Haemodialysis and Pneumothorax.
Unfortunately, on 24.08.1989 at about 9:15 a.m., Priya Malhotra expired.
On the same day, postmortem upon the dead body of Priya Malhotra was conducted at J.J. Hospital, Bombay. The post-mortem report revealed the cause of death was due to Peritonitis with renal failure. [Para 2.4]
Case before Maharashtra Medical Council
The appellant filed police complaint against the doctors of Bombay Hospital in Azad Maidan Police Station, Bombay. In the year 1990, complaint was also filed before the Maharashtra Medical Council. [Para 2.5]
The Commission in its order has noticed the decision of Maharashtra Medical Council dated 13.05.1999, whereby the Registrar of the Council conveyed that the Maharashtra Medical Council after discussion on the merits and demerits of the case unanimously resolved that ‘there is no negligence on the part of medical practitioners and they have managed the case to the best of their ability, therefore, it was unanimously resolved to drop the said inquiry and the medical practitioners be exonerated.’
The laparotomy was performed with complete success and did not create any complication to the patient. Dr. Pratima Prasad also submitted in her statement that it was conclusively proved by the post-mortem examination that the sutured intestines had healed and had not developed any leak. [Para 9]
In the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, the fact remains that when Priya Malhotra was brought to Bombay Hospital for treatment her health was in very bad condition. Renal failure had already taken place.
In the post mortem report conducted at J.J. Hospital, Bombay, it finds recorded that “patient was sick since four months by loose motion, vomiting and she was admitted in Bombay Hospital since 14.07.1989. She was operated on 09.08.1989 and died on 24.08.1989. The cause of death was due to peritonitis with renal failure”. [Para 16]
SC observed that in the light of the propositions of law settled in the above cited judgments of this Court, we are of the view that both on facts and in law no case is made out by the appellant against the respondents.
Division Bench further added that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out a case of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. It is not the case of the appellant that the doctors named in the complaint are not qualified doctors and specialized in their respective fields to treat the patient whom they agreed to treat. All the doctors who treated the patient are skilled and duly qualified specialists in their respective fields and they have tried their best to save the life of Priya Malhotra by joining their hands and heads together and performed their professional duties as a team work.
Reliance was placed on P.M. Examination Report in a Criminal Medical Negligence Case in Appeal
The appellant has not challenged the post mortem report dated 25.08.1989 submitted by J.J. Hospital wherein it has been stated that before Priya Malhotra was admitted to Bombay Hospital, she was sick since four months by loose motion and vomiting.
A copy of post mortem report of deceased Priya Malhotra placed on record of the Commission by Dr. A. Kriplani with his evidence on affidavit would read as under:
III] Microscopy: 1) Kidneys (same histology in sections from the two bits) reveal advanced kidney disease in the end stage. Most of the glomeruli are
sclerosed/hyalinised and structurally obsolete. Some of the few glomeruli not effected by advanced sclerosis reveal hypercellularity indicating that the end stage is the result of chronic progressive diffuse proliferative glomerulinephritis. The end stage lesion is extensive, irreversible and can cause intractable chronic renal failure. Interstitial fibrosis and inflammation are widespread.
Finally, it was opined by doctors that the death of Priya Malhotra was due to peritonitis with renal failure. [Para 19]
SC Division Bench observed that on our independent examination of the order of the Commission and other entire material on record discussed hereinabove, we find that the Commission has properly and rightly appreciated the entire factual and legal aspects of the matter and there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Commission which warrants any interference in this appeal. [Para 20]
SC Division Bench concluded that no other point has been raised by the appellant. Division Bench [We], thus, find no merit and substance in any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. [Para 21] In the result for the above-stated reasons there is no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. [Para 22]
References:
Lokeshwar Singh Panta , J., B. Sudershan Reddy, J. Ms. Ins. Malhotra vs. Dr. A. Kriplani & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2001, Date of Judgment: 24.03.2009. SC. Accessed from: URL:https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/34122.pdf
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another [(2005) 6 SSC 1]
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582: (1957) 2 AII ER 118 (QBD)