Medico Legal News

(PAEDIATRICS )

Dear Doctor,
Our effort is to provide you with the latest and relevant developments in the field of medico legal services for this we are providing you some case references from the field of Paediatrics.
11-00,  PAEDIATRICS
11.01 Tapan Kumar Nayak & Ors. V. State of Orissa & Ors.
1997 CPR 104 (NC).
Child of the complainants was an administered DPT injection and oral polio drop. He developed reaction resulting in damage to his brain causing muscular deformity and deficiency.
 The National Commission held that the enquiry report submitted by the District Immunization Offer, Cuttack clearly mentions that none of the other children who had also been vaccinated out of the same batch of the vaccine had suffered any complication of the present kind and hence it could not be said that there was any defect in the vaccine which was administered to the infant. It also held that the complainants are not consumers as there was no hiring of service for consideration between then and the opposite parties. While confirming the order passed by the Orissa State Commission, that there was no scope for awarding relief to the complainant under the C.P. Act, it strongly recommended to the State Government to render all possible assistance in proper rehabilitation of the child.
11.2 Pediatrics-Multiple diseases-Patient getting discharge against medical advice-No negligence-The complainant's 6 month old child was admitted in the JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry on 1.10.1992 for gastroenteritis and discharged on 12.10.1992. She was readmitted on 18.10.1992 for reduced urine output and referred to Child Trust Hospital, Madras for further and better treatment. It was alleged that on same day of admission here, she was given blood transfusion, and instead of A 2B positive blood, B positive blood without cross-matching was administered due to which child developed complications and died after 12 days on way to CMC Hospital, Vellore. The opposite party Hospital placed on record that the child on admission was suffering from haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS), septicaemia, peritonitis, circulatory failure, etc., and emergency blood transfusion was decided upon. As the child's blood group A 2B positive was not available, B positive blood was given as a life saving procedure. The donor blood was cross-matched with child's serum and was found to be compatible. All other treatment was provided, but her condition did not improve. The State Com- mission dismissed the complaint based on authoritative medical opinion of this being the recognized procedure in emergency situation as well as the fact that no reaction occurred on transfusing the said blood and child remained hospitalized for 13 more days after which the father got the child discharged from the hospital against medical advice at his own wish. [S. lqbal Khan v. The ChildTrustHospital, Madras, OP No.209 of 1993 decided by TN SCDRC on 20.10.1993 (unreported).]
11-02, Pediatrics-Burn injuries-Both legs of child burnt by keeping ex- tremely hot water bags during operation-Negligence held-Vicarious liability of hospital-Anaesthetist also made liable-Compensation of Rs. 5 lac awarded-A 65-day-old child was operated by a Pediatric surgeon for right inguinal hernia. Due to negligence of the duty nurse, who had kept an extremely hot water bag under the child' s leg, both his legs got burnt and he had to be given prolonged treatment and permanent scars resulted and would result into permanent disability in his future life. Compensation of Rs. 12.5 lac was sought on various counts for injury sustained by the child: Rs. 2.00 Lac .for pain & suffering of the child: Rs. 2.00 Lac .for future loss of ability, medical treatment such Rs. 1.50 Lac as plastic surgery: .pain and agony to the parents: Rs. 2.00 Lac .unliquidated damages for negligence: Rs. 5.00 Lac The State Commission on consideration of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and held that the Paediatric surgeon and anaesthetist did not exercise reasonable care in discharge of their duties and as such committed negligence. The Managing Director and Medical Director of Manipal Hospital were held vicariously liable. A sum of Rs. 5 lac was awarded as compensation to be paid jointly and severally by opposite. parties No.1 to 4 (i.e., Managing Director, Medical Director, Pediatric Surgeon, anaesthetist). [Master P.M. Ashwin and Ors. v. ManipalHospital. Bangalore, 1997 (1) CPJ 238: 1997 (1) CPR 393 (Karn. SCDRC)
11.04,  Paediatrics-Failure to diagnose-Stevens-Johnson Syndrome-Negligence held-Compensation of Rs. 10,000 awarded-The complainant's son Hiren was suffering from fever for which he was taking treatment from Dr. L.P. Trivedi, general practitioner. He did not improve and instead rash appeared and subsequently skin lesions allover the body appeared. He was advised to consult a Pediatrician, and was confirmed to be suffering from measles, and admitted to Navalben Maniram Virani / Hospital. As the condition deteriorated he was shown to an ENT Surgeon, Dr. Pandya, who diagnosed the case as Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS). Dermatologist Dr. Kamdar also examined him and started treatment for SJS. Ophthalmologist's opinion was sought, who opined that his eyes were normal and prescribed some routine treatment. His tear glands got damaged, and the resultant permanent damage required life-long artificial tear drops and eye ointment, and his vision was affected.
The State Commission held the general practitioner as not negligent. Not prescribing steroid eye drops by the ophthalmologist was also not negligent and the services rendered by the hospital were held not deficient. The State Commission held the Paediatrician, who failed to appear before the Commission, negligent for not applying his mind properly to the symptoms of Hiren and not diagnosing SJS at the earliest. He was held liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, but the complaint against the other opponents was dismissed. [Jayendra Maganlal Pandya v. Dr. Lalit P. Trivedi & Ors., 1997 (1) CPJ 11 (Guj. SCDRC).]
11.05, Paediatrics-Immunisation-DPT injection-Reaction occurred- Brain damage-Services not hired for consideration-Not a consumer dispute- No evidence of deficiency in service-In the instant case, the child of the complainants was administered DPT injection and oral polio drops. He developed reaction resulting in damage to his brain causing muscular deformity and deficiency. The National Commission held that the enquiry report submitted by the District Immunisation Officer, Cuttack clearly mentions that none of the other children who had also been vaccinated out of the same batch of the vaccine had suffered any complication of the present kind and hence it could not be said that there was any defect in the vaccine which was administered to the infant. It also held that the complainants are not 'consumers' as there was no hiring of service for consideration between them and the opposite parties. While confirming the order passed by the Orissa State Commission, that there was no scope for awarding relief to the complainants under the C.P. Act, it strongly recommended to the State Government to render all possible assistance in proper rehabilitation of the child. [Tapan Kumar Nayak & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., 1997 (2) CPJ 14: 1997 (2) CPR 104 (NCDRC).]
11-06, Paediatrics-Left foot drop following injection-Negligence of nurse administering injection held-Hospital held vicariously liable-Compensation of Rs.1, 05,000 awarded against hospital with cost Rs.1000/-The complainant's minor son aged 8-1/2 years was taken to Karuna Hospital for fever and tonsillitis. On advice of the doctor, the staff nurse gave injection paracetamol in the left buttocks, following which the boy developed left foot drop. He was referred to a neurologist who diagnosed the condition as left sciatic nerve palsy, and the left leg remained disabled. The condition occurred due to the injection needle entering into the sciatic nerve due to negligence of the nurse. Second opposite party contended that this was an accepted complication, and, if the injection had caused any injury to the sciatic nerve, it was accidental. The State Commission noted that the staff nurse had left employment soon after the lawyer's notice and could not be contacted. Also, the Diploma in Nursing issued by the Holy Family School of Technology, Ettumannoor was not recognised by the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council, hence she was not qualified to administer the injection. This amounted to actionable negligence. Quoting a recent decision of the National Commission in Harjot Ahluwalia (minor) through his parents v. Spring Meadows Hospital and Ors., 1997(2) CPJ 98: 1997 (3) CPR 1 (NCDRC), which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia, 1998 (3) CPJ 1 : JT 1998 (2) SC 620(SC), that the hospital is responsible for the acts of its employees and is liable for the consequences of their negligence, the State Commission held that the child had suffered on account of negligence of an employed of the hospital, hence the hospital is liable to pay damages. Rs. 1 lac was awarded as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the complainant for mental agony and Rs. 1, 000 as costs. [A.M. Mathew v. Director, KarunaHospital& Ors., 1998 (1) CPJ 476: 1998 (1) CPR 39 (Ker. SCDRC).]
11-07, Paediatrics-Nurse-Injection chloroquine given i. v. -Cardiac arrest-Delay in reviving the heart-Brain damage-Negligence held-Heavy compensation of Rs. 12.5 lac to child and Rs. 5 lac to the parents awarded- The appeal preferred against the decision of the National Commission I to award Rs. 12.5 lac as compensation to the child and Rs.5 lac as compensation to the parents, the Supreme Court of India on 25.3.1998 upheld the award against the Hospital. On 30.12.1993 at 9 am Miss B.M., nurse of the Spring Meadows Hospital, New Delhi, on advice of the senior consultant paediatrician, Dr. P.B. asked the father of the minor patient to get inj. Lariago. The father of the child purchased the medicine, which was written down by the nurse and gave it to her. The nurse injected the same i. v. to the child, upon which the child collapsed, had cardiac arrest and consequently suffered brain damage and continues to survive in a vegetative state. The nurse pleaded that as the child was already taking Chloroquine syrup and when the doctor advised that injection should be given, she thought that the same drug Chloroquine was to be given as an i. v. injection. In fact, Dr P .B. had asked for injection IV Chloramphenicol to be given. It was the duty of the Resident doctor who was on the round to write, give the injection and take all care The Supreme Court held that a consultant could be negligent where he delegates the responsibilities to his junior with the knowledge that the junior was incapable of carrying out his duties properly. The insurance company with whom the hospital was insured, pleaded that they cannot be made liable because the nurse Ms. B.M. was not a qualified nurse nor registered with the nursing council of any State. As the present condition of the child was on account of the negligence of an unqualified nurse, they could not be made liable. But the court held that since both the nurse and the resident doctor were negligent the insurance co. was liable to indemnify the amount of Rs.12.375 lac as per the terms of the policy as the case was fully covered under the indemnity insurance. The remaining amount was to be paid by the hospital as it was held vicariously liable. The court held that both the parents of the child as well as the child would be consumers within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act and as such can claim compensation separately under the Act. 1997 (2) CPJ 98: 1997 (3) CPR 1 (NCDRC). The our held the nurse and the resident doctor Dr D negligent. The court also held that the hospital is responsible for the negligence of the employees and is also liable for its consequences. The court concurred with the following findings of the National Commission that the hospital was negligent in employing unqualified people as nurse and in entrusting a minor child to her care there had been considerable delay in reviving the heart of the child, and this delay damaged the brain. [SpringMeadowsHospital& Anr. v. Harjot Ahluwalia (through K.S. Ahluwalia) & Anr., 1998 (3) CPR I (SC) : 1998 (1) CPJ I : JT 1998 (2) SC 620. ]
11-08, Paediatrics-Administration of Ciprofloxacin in infants-Child of 1- 112 years treated with the drug for enteric fever in 1994-Cured within 7 days and no side effects shown-Same illness treated with same medicine in 1996 when it was 3 years of age-Doctor not be held negligent in prescribing the drug-It cannot be said that Dr. R.N. Mehrotra was in any way negligent in treating the child patient and has caused any sort of permanent damage to the child by prescribing Ciprofloxacin which, according to some medical opinion, should not be given to children below 12 years of age. Some of the medical literature advocates the use of this medicine in children also. It is for the doctor, who is treating the patient, to see as to which drug will be very effective and will cure the patient at a particular time. According to Dr. R.N. Mehrotra, when the child has been treated and responded well to the administration of Ciprofloxacin in the year 1994 when he was only 1-1/2 years of age and was completely cured so the same medicine was safely repeated for treatment of same type of disease again in the year 1996 when the child was about 3 years of age, the doctor had taken reasonable care and caution and his previous experience in prescribing this medicine for the benefit of the child patient. In the present case the doctor was not negligent in prescribing Ciprofloxacin to the child patient and there is no evidence on record to prove or suggest that any permanent damage of any kind to any organ or the body of the child has been caused or the growth of the child in any way been affected by this treatment. [Dr. Rakesh Nath Mehrotra v. Atul Pradhan & Ors., 2000 (1) CPR 405 (UP SCDRC)]
11-09, Paediatrics-Septicaemia-Child treated for malaria by other doctors, brought to opposite party in critical condition-Same treatment continued, but antibiotics initiated as soon as septicaemia detected-Civil Surgeon with assistance of Paediatrician certifying treatment as proper-Inevitable delay of blood trans- fusion, and death of child-No negligence- The health of a child was itself serious when admitted to the hospital. Doctor administered those medicines and injections, which were prevalent and supported by medical literature. The delayed blood culture report and the delay in blood transfusion are the delays, which cannot be attributed to the appellant doctor. They are the inevitable part of the procedure adopted for their administration. Rules are provided for examination of blood of the donor, rules are provided for administering the antibiotics when septicaemia is detected and, therefore, the approach of the District Forum in attributing the delay on the part of the appellant in treating cannot be treated as an act of negligence on the part of the appellant. The child was treated at Ahmedpur for more than 2 days. At the later stage, when the situation became critical, the child was removed to the hospital of the appellant. Had the child been treated by the appellant right from the beginning the event could have been
averted. Unfortunately, the removal was delayed and the child was brought in critical condition at the hospital of the appellant. The death of the child cannot be attributed to the appellant on account of the negligent treatment by the appellant. Even the Civil Surgeon did not find any fault in the treatment given by the appellant. Ultimately, the health of the child is an individual affair. The reaction of the child to the various medical treatments may be different and if in that context, some victims fall prey to the ailments, the appellant or the doctors cannot be blamed. [Dr. M.S. Bhatambre v. Babu K. Kople, 2000 (3) CPJ 366 (Mah. SCDRC)]
11-10, Paediatrics-Physiological jaundice-Irreparable mental handicap- Convulsions developed in new-born child after discharge from hospital-No physician consulted by complainant nor treatment given to prevent elevation of serum bilirubin to toxic level to avoid Kernicterus-Child becoming mentally handicapped-Contributory negligence of parents-No negligence- The first indication of complication came to be known when the child had convulsions for the first time, i.e., 2-3 hours after discharge as has been alleged. If the child would have received expert medical care at the very spur of the moment, the elevation of bilirubin to toxic levels sufficient to produce kernicterus could have been avoided. Thus, the complainant and his wife are themselves responsible for the state (}f mental handicap of the child, since they themselves have been negligent and inattentive about the seriousness of the child's illness. At no point of time there has been any negligence or dereliction in the duties and obligations of clinical doctor on the part of the opposite party No.1 who has given treatment to the child as per her best skills. After discharge from the opposite parties' hospital the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any alleged deterioration in the health of the child of his mental capabilities. [Lalluram Meena v. Dr. S. Mathur & Anr., 2001 (3) CPJ 200 (Raj. SCDRC)].
11-011, Paediatrics-Prescription of wrong medicine-Infant of a few days suffering from fits, prescribed Gardinal Tablets 60 mg. by opposite-party No.2 doctor-Condition deteriorating-Advised to consult opposite party No.1 doctor who conducted EEG test and diagnosed epilepsy-No proof that opposite party No.1 prescribed same medicine-OP No.2 doctor held negligent in prescribing the medicine in question-Compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by District Forum upheld against OP No.2 doctor-In the instant case sufficient evidence was found on the point that the second appellant-doctor had charged fees at his residence for the purposes of examining the child in the hospital on the next day. Moreover, the table  gardinal 60 mg. was prescribed by him. Deepika was simply a child of few days when she was examined by the doctor. After his administering the polio vaccination the child could have developed fever in normal course but after that her personal medical consultant should have exhibited more professional skill and care in treating the child. Without conducting further tests he had prescribed gardinal tablet for a child of few days to be consumed by her for a period of one month resulting in deterioration of child's condition. He was certainly negligent in rendering professional services to the child. Compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by District Forum upheld against OP No.2 doctor. [Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia & Anr. v. Deepika & Ors., 2002 (1) CPJ 411 (Raj. SCDRC)]
13-12, Paediatrics-Jaundice of new born baby-Serum bilirubin test con- ducted in Nursing Home confirming child suffering from jaundice and while the child under treatment of O P-2, serum bilirubin increased-Patient referred to children Hospital wherein it was found it had developed higher percentage of serum bilirubin due to delay and negligence of O. Ps. 1 and 2 in bringing down bilirubin level-No pathological test nor photo therapy performed in the Nursing Home- Treatment given in the Nursing Home not according to code of conduct as a result of which the child becoming permanently physically disabled-Negligence held-Compensation of Rs. 41ac and medical expenses of Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the District Forum upheld by the State Commission- The Bilirubin level of the blood was 13.3 fig/dl on 25.6.1997 while the normal level should be 0.2 to 1.0 fig/dl. This shows that the level of jaundice was increasing. When the level was increasing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 should have taken care to take daily tests, which were not conducted on 26.6.1997 and 27.6.1997 to check and see the bilirubin test. On 28.6.1997 when the bilirubin test was performed, it was found much high i.e.36.43 mig/dl, which was beyond control. At this stage the OP No.2 awakened and referred the case to Jabalpur. Thereafter, the child was brought to Ayushman Children Hospital, Jabalpur where the child was admitted and serum bilirubin was examined on 29.6.1997, which was found 41.05 fig/dl. Then blood transfusion was done. Though in this process the life of the child was saved but by the time the brain and other parts of the body were damaged so much so that the child became permanently physically disabled.
OP Nos. 1 and 2 did not administer the treatment according to code of conduct of medical practitioner, that is, did not exercise their legal duty with due care in not taking proper care and administering the treatment at alate stage when the bilirubin level increased. Non-conduction of test of the bilirubin for two days and reference for expert treatment of the child at alate stage when the condition of the child became uncontrollable are breach of the duties required from a reasonable man. Therefore, OP Nos. 1 and 2 were deficient in service in administering medical treatment to the child and hence are liable at law for the consequences of their negligence because of which the child has become permanently a physically challenged person for his whole life.
The compensation awarded by the District Forum, is not adequate to compensate the injury suffered, as the child would require recurring expenses who would merely have a vegetative life. The parents of the child would suffer acute mental agony and the life long care and attention, which the parents would have to bestow on the newly born child. However, the same cannot be enhanced as the claim was only to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The expenses awarded in medical treatment (Rs. 75,000/- ) are just and proper, hence, does not call for any enhancement in the absence of any appeal by the complainant. [(Dr.) Rakesh lain v. Rakesh Kumar Khare & Ors., 2003 (1) CPJ 27 (MP SCDRC)]
11-014, Paediatrics-Administration of drugs-Child having medical problems since its birth, suffered from jaundice and acute diarrhoea-He was given the drug gentamycin by the doctor-Complainant alleges that because of excess injection of said drug the child became deaf and thus the doctor was negligent in treating the child that resulted in deafness-Medical opinion reveals that the drug administered under permissible limits-Doctor not be held negligent or deficient in service-A doctor would not be guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art and if he has acted in accordance with such practice then merely because there is a body of opinion that takes a contrary view will not make him liable for negligence. Dr. M, who is an Assistant Surgeon, stated that the deafness from which the appellant is suffering is a congenital defect. Dr. A, another Assistant Surgeon stated that whatever he had mentioned in the certificate was not on the basis of personal observations.
The question arises as to whether the deafness from which the appellant came to suffer g was congenital or this occurred on account of excess injunction of Gentamycin. Dr. M has stated in categorical terms that the appellant is suffering from deafness which is congenital in nature. Dr. J has given an opinion that gentamycin can be given to a child suffering from diarrhoea and has further opined that the dose which was prescribed was within permissible limit. In the present case, the medical opinion which has come on the record is that gentamycin could be given to a child and it has been further stated that the same has been given under permissible limits. If above be the situation, then, it is difficult to record a finding that the respondent doctor was negligent. [Sidharth Batta v. Dr. Maj. Gen. M.L. Magotra, 2003 (2) CLD 266: AIR 2003 NOC 477 (J&K-HC)]
11-15, Paediatrics-Non-availability of essential equipment in hospital-Pa- tient delivering twin babies, one dead foetus and the other living but having less weight who also died shortly-Complaint alleging non-availability of a respiratory gadget in the hospital which was necessary to save the life of the baby in such circumstances amounted to deficiency in service-District Forum allowing com- plaint on a totally different ground raised by complainant by amending the complaint holding that the opposite party did not have the requisite qualification as an expert for running the hospital-No application for amendment sought but the ground raised after evidence led by both parties-Opposite party not given an opportunity of hearing-Amendment amounted to a new complaint barred by limitation, on facts-Order of District Forum unsustainable- The complaint was filed on 2.8.1996. The opposite parties I and 2 were cross-examined on 10.12.2000 and 18.12.2000 respectively. However, the complainants filed an amended complaint on 29.12.2000 raising the ground that the opposite parties do not have requisite qualifications. No application for amending the complaint is filed or order obtained from the District Forum. But only an amended complaint was filed after both the parties have given their evidence. Therefore, this allegation cannot be countenanced as it does not form part of the complaint originally filed. If an application is filed for amendment the opposite parties including the appellant would have an opportunity to oppose the same. But that opportunity was denied to them. Even assuming that an amended complaint could be received by the District Forum this allegation was made on 29.12.2000 by which time more than two years has elapsed from the date of cause of action. Even the notices exchanged between the parties passed during 1996. Therefore, if it is treated as a fresh complaint the same would be barred by time. If an application is filed for amendment and accepted by the court the amendment would relate back to the date of the complaint. Hence the amendment which is barred by time can be allowed or not would have been considered. Here no opportunity was given to the opposite parties to oppose the same. Particularly after the evidence was adduced by both the opposite parties, the amendment cannot be permitted or taken note of which causes prejudice to the opposite parties. [Dr. P. Madanmohan Rao v. Khaja Moizuddin, 2004 (7) CLD 313 (AP SCDRC)]
11-16 Paediatrics- Treatment of new born babies-Qualification-OP-l , a graduate in Medicine and Surgery and OP-2, besides MBBS having diploma in  Pediatrics and Fellowship in Neonatology registered with Medical Council of India and the State Medical Council-Order of District Forum allowing complaint alleging deficiency in service holding that the doctors did not have the requisite qualifications, without any allegation of deficiency in service in attending to patient or adopting proper procedure for treating the patient-Unsustainable as there is no authority produced to show that the doctors could not practise paediatrics- [Dr. P. Madanmohan Rao v. Khaja Moizuddin, 2004 (7) CLD 313 (AP SCDRC)]
Foreign Cases 11-17, Paediatrics-Appendectomy-Post-operative care by giving instructions to parents-No negligence-A child left the hospital the morning after an operation for appendicitis. That afternoon his mother called the surgeon and described his symptoms and the surgeon told the mother that it was not necessary for him to come to see the child. He told her to come and pick up some medication at his office, which she did. The following day, the boy's father called the surgeon and described more symptoms and was told to come and get more medication, which he did. The court held that the defendant did not act improperly in failing to see the patient personally since he had enough information on which to make an accurate estimation of the child's condition. [Riggs v. Christier, 173 NE 2d 610, Mass 1961.]
11-18, Paediatrics-Case of boil-Mother not following instructions- Mother held negligent-A small child had a boil on her back. The physician gave her mother explicit instructions on care of the child, but the mother did not follow them. The infection spread and the physician had to administer antibiotics. She died of anaphylactic shock. The jury found the mother, not the physician, to be the negligent party. [Pulfinbarger v. Day, 24 Cal Rptr 533, Cal. 1962.]
11-19, Paediatrics-Pneumonia-Intern failing to admit-Death-Hospital liable for failure of intern-A 2-year-old girl was sent to the hospital with pneumonia as diagnosed by her pediatrician. He sent a note requesting admission and noted the diagnosis. The intern on duty told her mother that the child did not have pneumonia and sent her home. She died immediately thereafter and the hospital was liable for the intern's failure to treat her. [Barcia v. Society of the New YorkHospital, 241 NYS 2d 373, NY 1963.]
11-20 Paediatrics- Tonsillectomy-Duty to warn about risk involved-A 6-year-old boy suffered severe visual impairment after a tonsillectomy. The cause was the injection of three drugs prior to surgery .In holding that the surgeon had no obligation to warn his mother of this possible complication, the court said: ' 'The informed consent doctrine only applies where there are inherent and probable substantial risks". The decision went on to state that the doctrine of informed consent does not require the physician to disclose the risks of improper performance of the appropriate procedure. [Mallett v. Pirkey, 466 P 2d 466, Colo 1970.]
11-20, Paediatrics-New-born baby's infection not diagnosed-Death- Held negligent-A pregnant woman was admitted to the hospital at about the time she was presumably scheduled to deliver. She was bleeding heavily. She delivered alone in her room. Her baby died a day later. Laboratory tests had indicated that the baby had a severe infection. The paediatrician ignored the reports and concluded that the baby had hyaline membrane disease, in spite of the fact that the baby was not premature, and treated for that. Autopsy revealed that the cause of death was infection. The Court held that a cause of action was stated against the paediatrician. [Hogan v. Almand, 205 SE 2d 440, Ga 1974.]