Delhi High Court
Rashmi Pal vs The State (Govt. N.C.T. Delhi ) And ... on 20 January, 2020
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 20.01.2020
+ W.P.(C) 733/2020
RASHMI PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. N.C.T. DELHI ) AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh,
Mr.Raghvendra Pandey, Advs. for R-1.
Mr.T.Singhdev, Mr.Abhijeet Chakravarty,
Ms.Michelle B.Das, Ms.Sumangla Swami,
Advs. for R-2.
Mr.Praveen Khattar, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM 2150/2020
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 733/2020
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 on
the appeal filed by the petitioner herein alleging Medical
negligence on part of the respondent nos.4 to 6 in imparting
WP(C) No.733/2020 Page 1
treatment to the petitioner during the delivery of a child on
06.01.2015.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent no.2 has merely relied upon the submissions made
by the respondent no.4 in the course of hearing of the appeal for
reaching the conclusion of the lack of medical negligence on
part of the private respondents. He further submits that the
respondent no.2 has failed to consider if the Lower Segment
Caesarean Syndrome Operation was at all required on the
petitioner.
3. Relying upon on an article 'How to Avoid MAS
(Meconium Aspiration Syndrome)', he submits that the
operation was suggested only because of leaking per vaginum,
which in view of this article should not have been the sole
ground for suggesting such operation.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The respondent no.3 while finding
lack of negligence on the part of private respondents, had
observed as under:
"In view of the above, the Disciplinary Committee
observes that the patient was induced at term
pregnancy for leaking per vaginum and during the
course of induction fetal distress developed.
Emergency LSCS was done for fetal distress. Intra-
operative and immediate post-operative period was
uneventful. After removal of catheter, there was
WP(C) No.733/2020 Page 2
anuria and the patient's KFT started deteriorating.
The patient was managed as per the standard
protocol and requirement for dialysis was also
discussed. Eventually relatives decided to shift the
patient to other higher facility. This case fits into
idiopathic postpartum acute kidney injury /
Postpartum Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). It
has been reported in the literature that in few
women, this syndrome starts in pregnancy itself
and can then manifest in early postpartum period.
As per the records available, no obvious cause for
this complication can be identified. No obvious
reason of negligence is found in this case.
In light of the observations made herein-above, it
is the decision of the Disciplinary Committee that
no medical negligence can be attributed on the
part of Dr. Naresh Pamnani, Dr. Poonam Verma
and Bhagwati Hospital, in the treatment
administered to the complainant's wife Smt.
Rashmi Pal."
5. The appeal filed before the respondent no.2 has also been
rejected, observing as under:
"The Committee further noted that after the
removal of catheter, the condition of the patient
started deteriorating but the patient was managed
as per the standard protocol. Dr. Naresh
Pamnani, Physician & Director of the Hospital
stated that the requirement of dialysis was also
discussed with the attendants of the patient as the
hospital was well equipped with the facility which
was required in a patient with such a complication.
They were not even willing to shift the patient to
ICU. Though the patient went LAMA, the patient
WP(C) No.733/2020 Page 3
was shifted to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh with
all stable vitals in ACLS ambulance with an RMO
Dr. Sarvan Kumar.
The Committee after hearing both the parties in
detail and after perusing the case records noted
that it was an unfortunate case of postpartum
Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) although rare
but can happen in the pregnancy and then manifest
in early postpartum period.
In view of the above, the following observations
are made out:
Dr. Poonnm Verma and Dr. Naresh Pamnani
offered best of their services maintaining all
requisite standard protocol of treatment;
Dr. Poonam Verma recognized the complication
very well in time; and; acted promptly to transfer
the patient to ICU;
Dr. Naresh Pamnani Suggested ICU & need and
availability of Dialysis with further support from
relevant specialties; the Hospital had all these
facilities; but the patient party wanted to shift to
another Centre.
Ultimately, the patient was shifted to Max
Hospital; on their request ACLS ambulance with a
doctor was provided by the Hospital & the patient
shifted with stable clinical parameters;
So, in view of the above, the Ethics Committee of
the MCI; while upholding DMC order dated
06.09.2018; is of the view that no negligence can
be attributed on the part of the Hospital and the
treating doctors, thereby exonerating the doctors
namely Dr. Naresh Pamnani & Dr. Poonam Verma
from such charges; rather providing ACLS
ambulance with RMO to a patient of DOPR in an
WP(C) No.733/2020 Page 4
appreciable service & dutiful obligation rendered
by the Hospital Management towards a serious
patient.."
The above recommendations of the Ethics
Committee have been accorded approval by the
Board of Governors at its meeting held on
09.10.2019."
6. As these are opinions that are rendered by the experts in
their field, unless they are shown to be totally perverse or
unreasonable in any manner, this Court cannot act as an
appellate body to revise such findings on merits. This Court
cannot also adjudicate on disputed question of facts.
7. Both respondent nos.2 and 3 have found that the
petitioner had suffered from a rare condition of atypical
Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome and had been given treatment as
per standard procedures/protocol. I, do not find any reason to
interfere with such findings.
8. I therefore, find no merit in the present petition. The same
is dismissed.
9. However, as the proceedings before the respondent nos.2
and 3 are restricted in nature it is made clear that the findings of
the respondent nos.2 and 3 shall not prejudice the case of the
petitioner in any other proceedings against the private
respondents and the petitioner would be at liberty to lead
independent evidence to establish claim of
WP(C) No.733/2020 Page 5
damages/compensation against such respondents under the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Delhi Medical
Council Act, 1997.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 20, 2020
RN
WP(C) No.733/2020 Page 6
