Hospital ordered to pay Rs15m compensation to woman for negligence, defective services

A consumer court has ordered a private hospital and a doctor to pay Rs15 million in compensation to a woman whose full-term newborn boy suffered fetal distress due to “gross negligence” and “breach of duty of care”.

Rija Hasan filed a complaint with the East district consumer court seeking damages and compensation from a private hospital and gynaecologist Dr Aliya Begum Aziz for mental trauma she went through due to their alleged defective services and negligence.

Judge Fahmida Sahoowal observed that the complainant proved her claim through oral as well as documentary evidence. The respondents' gross negligence and clear departure from Sindh Service Delivery Standards for Hospitals (SSDS) left the claimant with mental torture and trauma, which is impossible to calculate here, she said.

“The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay damages to claimant at Rs10 million within 15 days without any failure thereof,” ruled the judge and ordered the hospital to return the entire actual payments received in lieu of the defective services to the claimant.

She directed both hospital and doctor to jointly pay compensation of Rs5 million to the woman on account of “admitted negligence and breach of duty of care of respondents and for the subsequent agony suffered by claimant”. They are also required to pay the cost incurred on the complaint, including the lawyers’ fee, to the tune of Rs250,000.

“In case of failure to comply with above order(s) by respondents jointly and severally within a given time, they shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of one year as per Sub-section 2 of Section 33 of Sindh Consumer Protection Act-2014,” warned the judge.

The complainant stated that on January 13, 2023, she was rushed to the hospital after experiencing labour pains and admitted under the care of Dr Aliya Begum Aziz. She said her husband was not in Pakistan and the hospital staff didn’t allow her mother or mother-in-law to accompany her in the labour room, which was very traumatic and distressing

for her.

The woman claimed that her labour was prolonged and nothing was done to assist her in delivering her baby. She stated the doctor remained absent from the labour room while her team insisted that they couldn’t do anything without her instructions, adding that due to her negligence and breach of duty, her healthy and full-term child had to be rushed to a neonatal ICU due to fetal distress.

She said that she suffered trauma, depression and anxiety due to her newborn child’s condition and that she had to seek psychological support to deal with mental torture caused by defective services.

In her order, the judge noted: “Record reveals that the respondent doctor only visited the patient/claimant twice during the entire period from her admission to birth of a child.” She added that it was also part of the record that “on Jan 14, 2023 at about 10:40am junior doctors’ team present in the labor room to assess the patient’s condition had planned emergency C-section of claimant but same rush call was declined by the respondent without assigning any reason.”

The judge noted that the doctor during cross-examination admitted to declining junior doctors’ suggestion for C-section despite being informed of the patient’s early deceleration. “It is also important to note that respondent admitted that C-section is a method to circumvent fetal distress. She also admitted that fetal distress [occurs] when a baby does not show a normal heart rate pattern during labor. These admissions of respondent reveals that neither she was present in the labor room nor she was observing the actual condition of claimant as well as heart rate pattern of baby on the contrary she has declined rushed call for emergency C-section of junior doctors team who were physically present there and observing the actual condition of claimant and heart rate pattern of baby,” she said.

“The respondent being an expert and senior gynaecologist having 25 year experience as senior doctor and being part of renowned institution has failed to owe duty of care towards claimant, act negligently and remained absent from the entire picture, resultantly a healthy and full term child of claimant was rushed to NICU due to fetal distress.”

She noted that as per paeds, the child was suffering from birth asphyxia, neonatal hypothermia and pneumothorax in the right lung.

On discharge of the child, the claimant was informed that it was highly likely the child will have long-term disability due to birth asphyxia which will result in hypoxic brain

injury, the judge said.