Uttarakhand State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Doctor
The Uttarakhand State Fee, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. C.M. Singh, dismissed a grievance for negligence and deficiency in service in opposition to a health care provider and held that to show negligence, professional opinion should be supplied, as ultrasound is just not conclusive proof.
Temporary Information of the Case
The complainant gave delivery to a baby who had severe bodily deformities. The baby couldn’t sit, stand, or transfer the decrease physique resulting from an underdeveloped backbone and sacrum. The complainant had a number of ultrasound scans finished on the physician’s/the alternative get together’s clinic throughout being pregnant. All studies stated the fetus was regular. After delivery, an MRI confirmed main defects, which medical doctors stated may have been detected throughout being pregnant. The complainant claimed the physician didn’t detect these points in the course of the ultrasounds. This induced the complainant emotional, bodily, and monetary struggling. She filed a grievance for medical negligence and deficiency in service earlier than the District Fee. The District Fee discovered the physician negligent and ordered him to pay ₹8,00,000 as compensation, ₹3,50,000 for psychological and bodily struggling, and ₹10,000 as litigation prices. Aggrieved, the physician filed an attraction earlier than the State Fee of Uttarakhand.
Contentions of the physician
The physician denied all expenses. He stated he solely carried out 2D ultrasounds as per directions from BHEL Hospital, the place the complainant was referred. He said that primary ultrasounds can’t detect backbone or sacrum defects. He had no authority to carry out superior scans like 3D or 4D. He additionally stated the complainant was diabetic, and BHEL medical doctors ought to have ordered superior exams. The physician argued that the kid’s situation is uncommon and often not detected by way of 2D scans. A medical board discovered no negligence on his half. Subsequently, he claimed the grievance must be dismissed.
Observations by the State Fee
The State Fee noticed that the physician had carried out solely 2D ultrasounds, as prescribed by the treating medical doctors at BHEL Hospital. The Fee famous that the physician was empanelled solely to conduct primary fetal well-being scans and was not authorised or instructed to hold out Degree II, 3D, 4D ultrasounds, or MRI. It referred to the findings of a medical committee report by the Chief Medical Officer, Haridwar, which said that the situation was a uncommon congenital abnormality present in only one out of 75,000 to 1,00,000 instances and is troublesome to detect by way of a 2D ultrasound. The report confirmed that the ultrasound was carried out with out negligence or malice. The Fee additional noticed that no professional proof or physician’s affidavit was submitted by the complainant to show negligence. It relied on the case Hemlata v. Dr. Vipin Premi, the place it was held that ultrasound studies will not be conclusive proof and should be supported by additional proof. It additionally cited Senthil Scan Centre v. Shanthi Sridharan & Anr. and Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, the Supreme Court docket emphasised that ultrasound is just not 100% conclusive and negligence should be confirmed with professional opinion. Based mostly on these ideas and the information of the case, the State Fee dominated that there was no deficiency in service. It allowed the attraction, put aside the District Fee’s order, and dismissed the grievance.
Case Title: Dr. Manoj Singh Vs. Smt. Renu
Case Quantity: SC/5/A/180/2018
