A decade after a woman died of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) soon after childbirth, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (TSCDRC) directed a hospital to pay ₹ 43,57,000 to the patient’s husband and daughter. The Commission said the hospital did not act swiftly, and stated that nursing homes should be equipped to deal with eventualities, instead of blaming patients.
The TSCDRC, with in-charge president Meena Ramanathan and member (judicial) V V Seshubabu, was dealing with a complaint filed by K. Hari Prasad and his daughter. The Opposite parties (OP) were Taraporewalla Nursing Home and Dr Shirin N. Taraporewalla.
Mr. Prasad stated that he admitted his wife to the hospital on August 10, 2013. A day later his wife delivered a baby. Soon after, he was informed that his wife suffered PPH. A hysterectomy was needed. The OP requested Mr. Prasad to get blood from Sunshine Hospital. It took him 35 minutes to do so. Upon his return, the OP informed him that the patient’s pulse rate was very low. The blood was not used, and his wife was pronounced dead on the same day.
Mr. Prasad alleged that the hospital did not given his wife necessary care by failing to control PPH. The hospital was ill-equipped to deal with emergencies and despite being told that he was capable of dealing with expenses, his wife was not moved to a corporate hospital.
For their part, the OP stated Mr Prasad was not at the hospital at the time of delivery and blood was not made available by 9.30 am. The patient was not in a condition to be moved to another hospital. The antenatal card showed that blood grouping was done many months before her admission. The OP recommended Sunshine Hospitals to avoid complications. Nursing homes are not required to have an attached blood bank, and the hospital was fully equipped to deal with obstetric emergencies. Despite following a step-by-step PPH treatment was administered but she suffered uncontrolled catastrophic PPH. The OP denied negligence.
The Commission noted that documents show that the patient’s blood pressure was low soon after delivery, and continued to fall. When this was the case, the OP should have reacted immediately. The OP did not explain why measures shown in literature they had provided to the Commission on dealing with risk factors, and bleeding, were not followed for PPH management. While PPH can not be linked to medical negligence, as implied by the OP, should they not be more cautious and expect complications during delivery, the Commission sought to know. The OP neither explained the treatment given, nor explained why surgical repair was not immediately performed, the Commission stated. They also sought to know why the patient was not treated more aggressively.
While stating there was negligence, and directing the OP to pay ₹43,57,000 as compensation, the Commission specified that half of this sum be a fixed deposit in the name of the the patient’s daughter.
