Amravati:The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench of Amravati, recently exonerated a doctor from charges ofmedical negligenceduring the treatment of a patient, who died shortly after giving birth to her newborn. After reviewing the postmortem report as well as the report of the medical board, the State Consumer Court observed that the patient's death could not be attributed to the normal delivery or the allegednegligence. The history of the case goes back to 2011, when the patient got herself examined by the treating doctor for her pregnancy and delivery. The patient came to the hospital of doctor with labour pain and delivered child i.e. the Complainant in the case, at 9:00 P.M. on 23/04/2011. Based on the patient's request and after verifying all the parameters were normal, the deceased was discharged on April 26 and on May 2nd, the deceased came to the hospital with a complaint of pain in the abdomen. She was examined and advised Sonography and X-ray, to which the deceased refused, and hence was advised to go to the PDMC Hospital for treatment free of cost. The deceased died on the same day in the evening at PDMC Hospital. The maternal uncle of the complainant filed the police complaint against the treating doctor, and consequently, the police made the inquiry and seized the documents of treatment given in the hospital of the treating doctor, as well as in the PDMC & Hospital. The Medical Board, headed the Civil Surgeon gave its report to the Police Station Gadge Nagar, giving an opinion about the cause of death of the deceased, as "Rupture of Urinary Bladder due to Massage etc." When the matter came to be considered before the District Consumer Court, the treating doctor denied responsibility for the injury or rupture of the urinary bladder of the patient and submitted that it must have ruptured 24 hours before her death. She claimed the complaint to be false, mala fide and vexatious and urged the consumer court to dismiss the same. Filing a rejoinder, the counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that one of the major symptoms of this deadly disease in case of female given birth to a child is foul-smelling vaginal discharge and pain in the vagina. It was also contended that even at the time of her discharge, the patient was having severe pain in the vagina and despite pointing it out to the doctor, the latter did not care for the same. Had the doctor not neglected the deceased and had taken proper care of her, the patient would not have been infected with Septicemia, argued the counsel. Allowing the complaint, the District Consumer Court directed the doctor to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the order, the doctor approached the State Consumer Court. The State Commission noted that, based on the police complaint, the police referred the matter to a Medical Board at the General Hospital Amravati, seeking its opinion about the probable cause of the patient's death. Consequently, the Medical Board, comprising the Civil Surgeon and other expert Gynaecologists of the General Hospital, verified all necessary and relevant facts and documents, including the record of the treating doctor's hospital, the record of the Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Medical College & Hospital, Amravati and the postmortem report. The Medical Board also called the treating doctor for inquiry and questioned her. After due inquiry, the Medical Board gave its report to the Police Station, Gadge Nagar, on 07.07.2011. In the report, the Medical Board, gave a specific finding stating that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor in the patient's death. "We find much force in the contention of the opponent that if there would have been perforation to the urinary bladder either during normal pregnancy i.e. 23/04/2011 or up to 26/04/2011 when the deceased was discharged from the hospital of opponent, then the quantity of the urine or fluid in the peritoneum would have been much more than only two litres in as much as the deceased was taking her meals and consequently also water and fluids at least till 01/05/2011,"the consumer court noted. The State Commission mentioned that the probable cause of death of the deceased, as per the postmortem report, was due to septicaemia, which was caused due to rupture or perforation of the bladder and therefore, the deceased developed septicaemia after there was rupture or perforation of the bladder. At this outset, the State Commission observed, It further observed that Sepsis after delivery may arise due to many factors viz poor hygiene, infection from outside the hospital, lack of post-natal care, patient's own condition (anemia, diabetes, etc.). Accordingly, after reviewing the evidence, the report of the Medical Board, the medical record of both hospitals, and the post-mortem findings, the Commission held that the death of the patient in this case could not be attributed to the treating doctor. With this observation, the Commission set aside the District Commission's order and dismissed the complaint. To view the order, click on the link below: https://.in/pdf_upload/maharashtra-state-consumer-court-303061.pdf Also Read: Consumer Court junks Rs 2 crore medical negligence claim against AIIMS New Delhi, Doctors