A Supreme Court Judgment on termination of pregnancy of a woman.

Smt. Vinitha Ashok v Lakshmi Hospital and ors.
Appellants: Smt. Vinitha Ashok
Respondents: Lakshmi Hospital and ors
Date: 25/09/2001
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan
 
Facts: The appellant gave birth to a son on 6.6.1989 after caesarean operation. On or about 3.2.1990 having suspected that she was pregnant again, she and her husband went to Lakshmi Hospital for consultation. The appellant was examined by Dr. Santha Warriar, respondent No. 2. On examination, respondent No. 2 informed the appellant that she was pregnant and it was decided to terminate the pregnancy for which 10.2.1990 was fixed. On 9.2.1990 lamineria tent was inserted when the appellant went to the Hospital. On 10.2.1990 the appellant, her husband and her sister-in-law went to the Hospital at about 8.30 a.m. Dr. Santha Warriar, respondent No. 2, took the appellant to the labour room. At about 10 O’clock Dr. Somalatha, respondent No.3, informed the appellant’s husband that the appellant was bleeding profusely and therefore, they have decided to conduct an operation. She also informed the appellant’s husband that the appellant was in a very serious condition and it was better to inform her near relatives. At about 4 O’clock the operations were over and the appellant’s relatives were informed that she was better but under sedation. Dr. Santha Warriar informed the appellant’s husband that it was a case of Cervical Pregnancy and her uterus had been removed. The appellant was discharged from the Hospital on 22.2.1990. The appellant complained that respondents had not acted with due care and caution required of medical professionals in diagnosing the problem, in taking care to prevent the problem, in the performance of their duties and lack of necessary facilities and infrastructure at the Hospital.
Contentions: counsel for the appellant addressed two lines of argument – firstly, that the appellant had a normal pregnancy and MTP was unnecessary and secondly, without proper diagnosis by ultra sonogram, the respondents conducted, MTP, which in fact was done negligently leading to excessive bleeding necessitating hysterectomy but if proper care had been taken this extreme step of removal of uterus could have been avoided. His further complaint is that the products of conception not sent for histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis and for future follow up. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that what had been done in the case of the appellant by the respondents was the existing practice and, therefore, they cannot be held to be liable being negligent for not being Ultrasound test; that there was no general practice anywhere in Kerala to do Ultrasound in MTP case; that normal procedure was adopted according to the guidelines issued by the Central Government. He, therefore, submitted that there is absolutely no negligence on the part of the respondents at all and the finding recorded by the Commission is justified and that all the finding recorded by the Commission is completely against the appellant.
Conclusion: Though there was reference to certain other decisions by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Supreme Court consider it unnecessary to advert to them since they do not lay down any different or new principles apart from what we have stated in the course of this judgment. In the light of the discussion made above, the Court find that the appellant has not been able to establish the case of negligence on the part of the respondents and, therefore, this appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties shall have to bear their respective costs.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
SUBMITTED BY:- SHUBHANGI GUPTA.