SMT. VINITHA ASHOK versus LAKSHMI HOSPITAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 292 · Decided: 25-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
SMT. VINITHA ASHOK 
v. 
LAKSHMI HOSPITAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 
. [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986--,-Sections 2(g) and 21. 
Medical Negligence-Standard of care-Termination of cervical 
pregnancy~Operation resulting in removal of uterus-Complaint filed 
for compensation against the Hospital and Doctors for removal of uterus-
Dismissed by the National Commission-On appeal, held not negligent in 
respect of diagnosis or the treatment-Peiformance of hysterectomy was the 
only solution on account of profuse bleeding-Medical Termination of Pregnancy 
Act, 1971. 
Appellant lost her uterus consequent upon an ectopic pregnancy in 
the cervical canal. Complaint was filed before the National Commission 
for compensation on ground of negligence on the part of respondents. 
Commission dismissed the claim on the ground that the appellant failed to 
prove negligence on the part of respondents. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that as she had a normal pregnancy, medical 
termination of pregnancy (MTP) was unnecessary. More so , MTP was 
conducted by the respondents without carrying out ultrasonogram; it was 
done negligently leading to excessive bleeding necessitating hysterectomy. 
F 
Further the products of conception were not sent for histopathological 
examination. Appellant further alleged that respondents had used lamineria 
tent for dilating cervix instead of dilapan. 
G 
On behalf of respondents, it was contended that there was absolutely 
no negligence on their part. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The appellant did not have any history from which 
presence of cervical pregnancy could have been suspected. The appellant 
H 
had not complained of any significant bleeding or painless bleeding or 
292 
,.. 
VINITHA ASHOK v. LAKSHMI HOSPITAL 
293 
bleeding with pain at any time. In the circumstances, the doctors could not 
have found that the appellant had ectopic pregnancy and therefore they 
cannot be held guilty of any negligence either in respect of diagnosis or in 
the matter of treatment administered. [301-F; G] 
2. The evidence of doctors with contemporaneous record states that 
the appellant had ectopic pregnancy in the cervical canal. While doing the· 
MTP the appellant started bleeding profusely and signs of internal bleeding 
was present and so an exploratory laporotomy was done. Since the bleeding 
was not controlled even after evacuation and suturing the lower segment, 
total hysterectomy was done which was the only remedy. [302-B-D] 
3.1. For hysterectomy the performance of the test of ultra sonogram 
was not required as it would not have improved the matter at all. At best, 
ultra sonogram would have disclosed that uterus was empty and that fact 
does not establish as to where the pregnancy is located. [303-C; D] 
A 
B 
c 
3.2. In the instant case, medical literature and expert evidence states 
D 
that ultrasonography identifies the ectopic pregnancy whereas some text 
books state that ultra sonography does not establish ectopic pregnancy. 
However, when two views even if possible, the general practice in the area 
in which the respondents practised such procedure was not followed and 
therefore no negligence can be attributed to the respondents on not 
E 
performing ultrasonography. [305-D; E] 
4. The use of lamineria tent in dialatation of cervix is one of the 
accepted standard procedures instead of dilapan and is a commonly used 
method in the area. Further even if there is difference of opinion amongst 
the experts on the 'Suction Evacuation and Dilatation & Currettage in 
F 
First Trimester MTP' procedures adopted by a doctor, the use of procedure 
commonly in practice in an area by respondent No. 2 cannot constitute a 
negligent act. [303-F; H; 304-C; D] 
5. Failure to send the uterus and the products of conception after 
surgery for histopathological examination did not result in any negligence 
G 
on the part of the respondents in the course of the surgical procedure 
adopted. Further if there was a suspicion of cancer, there would have been 
some manifestation of the same and, in such a circumstance 
' histopathological examination would have been done to rule out the 
possibility of cancer, whereas there was no complaint of any kind of cancer 
H 
'
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
nor was there any such visible proof of the same. [306-D; E] 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
6.1. Regulation 4 of the Medical Ter

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.