After 14 Years, Court Gives Relief to Gynaecologist in C-section Mop Left Inside Case

1. The Incident

1. Year of Incident: November, 2010
2. Date of incident discovery: June 23, 2011.
3. A surgical mop soaked in fecal matter was found and removed from the patient’s private part.
4. The patient had previously undergone two cesarean operations.
5. Due to complications from the mop, she underwent multiple surgeries, including a transverse loop colostomy.
   

 2. Legal Complaints & Investigations

1. The patient’s husband filed a police complaint and FIR alleging medical negligence.
2. The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and District Magistrate ordered medical board inquiries.
3. Both inquiries did not find clear evidence of negligence.
4. They pointed out that the mop found differed in size and shape from the ones used by the hospital.

3. Action by Medical Council

1. Despite inconclusive inquiries, the patient complained to the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council (UPMC).
2. UPMC suspended the doctor’s license for six months starting May 1, 2013.
3. The doctor challenged this but her writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.

4. Compensation Ordered

1. The patient filed a case with the State Commission demanding compensation.
2. The Commission ruled in the patient’s favor:
3. ₹50 lakhs for negligence
4. ₹3.9 lakhs for medical expenses
   iii. ₹84,000 for mental agony
   iv. ₹1 lakh for legal costs
5. Failure to pay within 30 days would increase interest to 15% per year.
   

5. Appeals to National Consumer Commission (NCDRC)

Both sides appealed to the NCDRC:

1. The doctor wanted the compensation order dismissed.
2. The patient wanted the compensation increased.
   

Doctor’s Defense

1. Argued that res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) should not apply.
2. Claimed:

1. No clear proof the mop was from her surgery.
   ii. The patient had earlier surgeries and the mop could be from those.
   iii. OT technician confirmed mop counts were correct post-surgery.
   iv. The mop was destroyed, and not tested.
   v. The patient didn’t cooperate with investigations.
   

 Patient’s Side

1. Argued that:

1. She suffered ongoing pain only after the second surgery.
   ii. Medical literature supports awarding compensation for:
   a. Pain and suffering
   b. Loss of income
   c. Future care and expenses
   iii. Doctors had a duty to provide continuous care and failed.
   

6. Findings of the State Commission

1. Found both doctor and hospital guilty of:

1. Medical negligence
   ii. Deficiency in services
   iii. Professional misconduct
2. Applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur due to the facts of the case.
3. Stated the hospital lacked basic/emergency facilities.
   

7. NCDRC Review & Final Stand

1. The National Commission reviewed the evidence:
   i. Found that civil liability was not clearly proven.
   ii. Mop wasn’t preserved as evidence.
   iii. No link established between the mop and doctor’s surgery.
   iv. Previous surgeries created doubt. 
2. Ethical misconduct was proven, but not enough to prove civil negligence.
3. Referenced Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, where:

1. Negligence must be based on breach of duty and actual harm.
   ii. Res ipsa loquitur must be used cautiously in medical cases.
   iii. Not all bad outcomes mean negligence. 
2. How the Doctor Suffered

1. Faced a 6-month suspension from medical practice by UPMC.
2. Lost professional credibility and income during this time.
3. Legal battles dragged on for years, causing emotional and mental distress.
4. Spent time and money fighting the case in the High Court, State Commission, and NCDRC.
5. Despite two inquiry boards clearing her, the case continued due to the UPMC’s action.
6. Appeal to the Medical Council of India was also dismissed.
7. Suffered public scrutiny and professional damage, even before final judgment.
8. Felt unfairly targeted, as conclusive medical proof was lacking.
9. Claimed that her ethical punishment was wrongly treated as legal negligence, leading to unjust liability.

Case Reference:

https://medicaldialogues.in/news/health/medico-legal/consumer-court-relief-to-gynaecologist-held-negligent-for-leaving-mop-inside-body-during-caesarean-127993