Appeared at the time of arguments through video conferencing RP/2269/2013 For the Petitioner : Nemo For the Respondents : Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocate Ms. Deepshikha, Advocate for R-2 & 6 Mr. Anoop Kumar, In-person (R-1) RP/4678/2013 For the Petitioner : Nemo For the Respondents : Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocate Mr. Anoop Kumar, In-Person (R-1) Ms. Deepshikha, Advocate for R-3 & 4 Pronounced on: 21st January 2022 ORDER PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. This Order shall decide both the Revision Petitions arising from the Order dated 26.02.2013, passed by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 968/2008. The Appeal was allowed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) dated 20.05.2008 in Complaint No. 222/2007 was set aside and a compensation of Rs.2 lakh in lumpsum was awarded payable Jalandhar jointly and severely by the Petitioners. 2. For the convenience, the facts are drawn from Revision Petition No. 2269/2013 and the parties are referred to as in the District Forum. 3. Brief facts that the Complainant’s wife Mrs. Dipika (hereinafter referred to as the “patient”) during her pregnancy was under regular antenatal checkups at ESI Hospital, Jalandhar. On 30.04.2007, in the morning, for checkups he took his wife to the Hospital but the staffs there were busy in arranging farewell of the Medical Superintendent. The doctor on duty saw the ultrasonography scan (USG) report done from M/s Kapoor Scanning Centre, Jalandhar and asked the patient to come on the next day. However, on the same day at 9 pm, the patient developed severe labour pains and got admitted in hospital. It was alleged that throughout night neither any duty doctor nor staff nurse attended the patient. The Complainant requested to shift the patient to another hospital, but no avail. The hospital did not provide ambulance. On the next day i.e. 01.05.2007, the patient’s Caesarean (LSCS) operation was done by another doctor but because of the delay baby was already dead. It was alleged that had the Caesarian operation been conducted on 30.04.2007 itself, the baby could have been saved. The Complainant alleged that the Hospital was also responsible, being unable to provide good quality medical care to their people under the ESI Corporation. The Hospital lacks basic lifesaving facilities like ambulance, blood bank and scanning etc. 4. Being aggrieved by the negligence of the doctor and hospital in their duty of care and deficiency in services, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Jalandhar against the Opposite Parties and claimed Rs.18 lakh compensation from the Opposite Parties. 5. The Opposite Parties - the Medical Superintendent and Dr. Reema Gogia filed their respective written versions and raised the preliminary objections on maintainability of the Complaint. They denied any negligence during patient’s treatment and delivery. 6. That the District Forum found no negligence and the Complaint was dismissed vide Order dated 20.05.2008. In challenge, the Complainant filed the First Appeal before the State Commission, it was allowed and the order of District Forum was set aside. The State Commission directed the Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital of Jalandhar (Opposite Party No. 4) and Dr. Reema Gogia (Opposite Party No. 6) to pay jointly and severely the lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.2, 00,000/- to the Complainant. 7. Being aggrieved, the both the Petitioners filed these two Revision Petitions. 8. Heard arguments from the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the material on record. 9. There are two issues, one that , whether the Petitioner, Dr. Reema Gogia, performed her duties with reasonable care as per the standard of practice and second, that whether the State Govt. was correct to fasten liability on the present Medical Superintendent Dr.Ravindra Kumar Gupta to pay the compensation. 10. As per the evidence of Complainant, in the evening, the patient was sent back home for the reason of farewell function of one hospital staff. However, due to severe labour pains she was again reported to the hospital at 10:30 pm and she was examined by the doctor on emergency duty- Dr. Reema Gogia (Petitioner) who was also attending throughout night the other 30 admitted patients. Though she was not a Gynaecologist, she was monitoring the progress of the labour. 11. On perusal of the Medical Record, the Petitioner, Dr. Reema Gogia was on duty and she examined the patient at in the night and recorded the clinical notes as; PA/-At 12.00 a.m. Cervix 5cm dilated Membranes ruptured Vx presented Vaginal bleeding +ve At 1.30 am informed gynaecologist on phone and took expert opinion Cervix 7.8cm dilated FHS +ve At 4 am cervix —- fully dilated FHS +ve At 5 am - head at O station Cervix — fully dilated FHS +ve 5.30 am patient sent to OT for LSCS FHS +ve Sd/- Dr. Reema Dated 1.5.2007 6.47 am 12. Thus it was evident that Dr. Reema Gogia was monitoring the progress of labour in consultation with the Specialist Gynaecologist. As the patient was multi gravida and had previous normal delivery, therefore now the normal delivery was expected. At 4.00 am dilatation of cervix was full but the head of the baby was high up and at 5.00 am the head was at '0' station. The foetal heart sounds (FHS) were within normal limit and uterine contractions were normal. The 2nd stage of labour was prolonged and the doctor waited for 6 hrs for a normal delivery, but when there was no good response; the patient was taken to operation theatre and the Caesarean section was performed by the Gynaecologist Dr. Jaswinder Kaur. It was not unusual about prolonged 2nd stage of labour and there was no foetal distress as it was monitored properly throughout the labour 13. It is pertinent to note that, at midnight patient presented with signs of “vaginal bleeding” which was caution to attending nurse and Dr. Reema Gogia about Accidental Haemorrhage and/or the possibility of Abruptio Placenta. According to the medical text books, an Abruptio placenta is the most common life-threatening cause of bleeding during late pregnancy, accounting for about 30% of cases. The evaluation of patients with vaginal bleeding during late pregnancy aims to exclude potentially serious causes of bleeding (abruptio placentae, placenta previa, vasa previa, uterine rupture). Bloody show of labor and abruptio placentae are diagnoses of exclusion.It is known that some patients continue to bleed inside the amniotic cavity and show vaginal bleeding. 14. In the instant case, from the medical record it is evident that the the clinical findings were telephonically informed to the Gynaecologist at 12:00 hrs (midnight) on 30.04.2008. Unfortunately the vaginal bleeding (bloody show) was ignored and not attended immediately, but after 6 hours the LSCS was performed, resultantly the baby was stillborn. In our view, the Gynaecologist should have attended and examined the patient to find out the causes of Accidental Haemorrhage or presence of Abruptio placentae, with the help of emergency ultrasound study and at the same time emergency LSCS should have been performed to save the baby. There is nothing on record or in the labour notes about the presence of Gynaecologist Dr. Jaswinder Kaur. Thus, prima facie it was a case of deficiency i.e. breach in duty of care from the gynaecologist as well on the Petitioner Dr. Reema Gogia. In turn, both the doctors were working in ESI Hospital, thus it was a “Contract for Service”, therefore, we hold the hospital vicariously liable in the instant case to pay the lumpsum compensation as awarded by the State Commission. 15. With respect to the Revision Petition No. 4678 of 2013, the Petitioner Dr. Ravindra Kumar Gupta submitted that he filed the revision petition only to limited extent so as to seek observation that he was not liable for medical negligence on the ground that at the time of incident which occurred in 2007, he was not posted as a Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital at Jalandhar, but he joined there on 12.03.2012. He was not aware about the pendency of the present complaint or appeal. However, the Director Health Services, Punjab held him liable for not attending the court proceedings and directed him to pay the part of compensation. 16. Taking in to consideration of those facts, we are of view that, there is no locus standi for the present Petitioner Dr. Ravindra Kumar Gupta to file the instant Revision Petition against the direction issued by the Director Health Services, Punjab. It was independent departmental proceedings. There shall not be any confusion that, the State Commission directed Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 i.e. Medical Superintendent and Dr. Reema Gogia to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The Order is clear and stands as it stood. The Medical Superintendent was held liable, but it was not in his personal capacity to pay the award to the Complainant. 17. As discussed above, the ESI Hospital is vicariously liable to pay the award of compensation, therefore this Commission, in any manner no way concerned with the dispute between the Director of Health Services and the Medical Superintendent (the Opposite Party No. 4). 18. Based on the foregoing discussion the ESI Hospital, Jalandhar is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees/doctors. It is glaring departmental inefficiency, though the matter was decided in 2013 but till date the Complainant is deprived of the award of compensation. The State Govt. may recover the amount from the erring doctors or officers as per their departmental rules. 19. Both the Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed with cost of 25,000/-. The compensation and the cost shall be paid by the ESI Hospital, Jalandhar to the Complainant within 6 weeks from today, failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till its realization. | 
