Court summons doctor for negligence during childbirth in 2018 case

New Delhi, Oct 17 (PTI) A Delhi court has summoned a doctor in a case where a baby delivered through surgery was allegedly reduced to a vegetative state due to her negligence.

The charges include "endangering life and personal safety of others" and causing grievous hurt by such act, but do not include "causing death by negligence".

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Amardeep Kaur was hearing a protest petition against the closure report filed by the Delhi Police in connection with the delivery in February 2018.

The complainant, Alok Kumar, said that due to the doctor's negligence, the baby suffered birth hypoxia, was reduced to a vegetative state, and passed away in December 2023 because of continued illness.

He has alleged that the investigation was carried out with a pre-conceived notion to give a clean-chit to the accused, Dr Shakuntala Kumar and her team, despite the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) and AIIMS holding them liable for negligence.

In its October 15 order summoning the doctor, the court said, "It is clear from the statement of Dr Shakuntala herself that the delivery of the baby was attempted a month prior to the actual expected date of delivery (EDD) and no procedure was actually required to be conducted upon the patient (mother), Anshu Bala, on February 11, 2018." The court said that due to an error by the doctor in calculating and recording a wrong EDD, the mother was subjected to a premature medical procedure.

"Being a medical professional and being entrusted with the life and safety of patient, Anshu Bala, and her unborn son, it was the duty of the gynaecologist upon the visit of the patient on February 11, 2018, to have rechecked, reconfirmed and recalculated her EDD and further to have taken into consideration the ultrasound reports which could have further explained to her the reason why the patient was not feeling any labour pain even after 10 days of the EDD as mentioned by her in the treatment/ prescription note," the court said.

It said that the doctor, however, "miserably failed to do so", and so it was apparent from the record that she acted negligently and "her rash and negligent act" resulted in the premature delivery of the baby.

The court said that the doctor subjected the patient to oxytocin, which led to scar rupture and caused hypoxic injury in the baby, leading to the baby being born severely asphyxiated, and causing him to lead a life in a vegetative state.

It said that the doctor had committed offences under IPC Sections 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others).

The court also held that the doctor was liable to be prosecuted under IPC Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) as she had intentionally manipulated some details in the discharge summary.

However, it added that no case was made out for prosecuting the doctor under IPC Section 304 A (causing death by negligence).

"There could be multiple intervening factors, including lack of care, administration of wrong medicine, administration of some wrong procedure, etc., which could have been the immediate cause of his death." "In other words, this court has failed to ascribe the negligence on the part of doctor Shakuntala, as a direct nexus between the death of the boy and the alleged act of negligence on her part," the court said.

It then summoned the doctor for committing the offences under IPC Sections 336, 338 and 201 on April 16, 2026. PTI MNR MNR SKY SKY