Alka Srivastava v. Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 175: MANU/CF/0535/2015

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Alka Srivastava v. Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment, 2015  SCC OnLine NCDRC 175: MANU/CF/0535/2015” The Honourable Justice J.M. Malik Presiding Member & The Honourable Dr. S.M.Kantikar Member . For the Petitioners Parthasil with Tavish B.Prasad, Advocates. For the Respondents: Anirban Majumdar, Advocate. Alka Srivastava the wife of Armed Forces personnel, who delivered a girl child suffering from deformities with lack of spontaneous movements of lower limbs, lack of anal reflex and open neural tube defect which need supervision throughout the life, due to the negligence and deficient services of the doctors of Army Hospital and Base Hospital at Delhi Cantonment. Even after transvaginal ultrasound, performed at Army Hospital , the plaintiff was told that the fetus was developing. Later, when she suffered pain, she was rushed to Singhal Nursing Home, where doctor performed ultrasound and found fetal abnormalities like Spinal Bifida, Meningomyelocele, and hydrocephalus.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Smt. Alka Srivastava, wife of Shri Abinash Srivastava, took treatment for her  gestation from Base Hospital( OP- 1). During her  gestation, she attended regular check- ups and ultrasound study( USG) at OP- 1. During the 12th week of  gestation, i.e. on 12.09.2006, Dr. Kanika of OP- 1, performed transvaginal ultrasound. Later, on25.09.2006, ultrasound was done  twice by Lt.Col.A. Kapur,  Army Hospital( OP- 2) and at OP- 1. Further, the alternate  position  checkup was performed on 21.11.2006.

 It was  latterly  verified at OP- 1 on 08.03.2007. also she was appertained to OP- 2. On 27.03.2007, patient delivered a  girl child with  lack of spontaneous movements of lower limbs, lack of anal reflex and open neural tube defect. The OP doctors failed to diagnose anomalies during the USG done at 12, 14, and 21 weeks. It was not situated at very low down in the fetal back. Furthermore, it is quite surprising that, even at 21 weeks, the OPs failed to diagnose spina bifida. The scans were performed without due care during a routine ANC check-up; the USG reports lack details and are not in standard format. The overall contention of doctors at OPs is that it is not possible to diagnose such anomalies before the 24th week. Therefore,  the patient did not have the option of terminating the pregnancy according to the PNDT method. Hence, the complainant was forced to give birth to an anomalous child on 27.03.2007.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether there was any Medical negligence from the side of the doctor or not?
• whether the Doctor is liable for not telling the patient about the abnormalities before the delivery of the child?

JUDGEMENT

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC decicion to  the Commission has directed the Army Hospital and Base Hospital at Delhi Cantonment to pay Rs.5 lakh as compensation to Alka Srivastava, wife of an Armed Forces personnel. OP-1 and OP-2 doctors had a duty of care towards the pregnant complainant. No obvious fetal abnormality could be diagnosed at 12, 14, or 21 weeks of pregnancy. When spina bifida is diagnosed before birth, parents can decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy. A delay or failure to diagnose Spina Bifida can cause an unnecessary period of pain , suffering  and can even lead to an unwanted birth.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said the doctors should have been more careful, If the diagnosis of spondylolysis is delayed or overlooked, it can cause  unnecessary  pain and suffering to the pregnant mother which may even result to the birth of an unwanted child.

The Army establishment gave an undertaking to the State Commission that the child, who was the daughter of a serving Armed Forces personnel, was entitled for free medical  care for her complete life along with the necessary social and infrastructure support.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the doctors at OP-1 and OP-2 were not able to diagnose the obvious fetal anomalies at 12, 14, and 21 weeks of gestation. The birth of the child with meningomyelocele and hydrocephalus is an ample proof of the guilt of these respondents of being utterly negligent and careless in conducting the transvaginal and transabdomnal ultrasonography of the complainant despite the fact that they have been informed the facts of the miscarriage of the first pregnancy and these doctors at respondents having assured all out efficiency. The complainant was forced to give birth to an anomalous child on 27.03.2007. Better assessment of gestational age, earlier detection of multiple pregnancies, detection of clearly unbalanced fetal pathology at a time when termination of pregnancy is possible. Use better technology so that you can know about the treatment of pregnancy , is the baby healthy or is there any problem.

Reference 

https://indiankanoon.org/

Written by Adnan Parwez an intern under legal vdihiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin