Significant worry and outrage have been aroused by the terrible incident at the government hospital in Wardhannapet mandal of Warangal district, where a newborn baby died as a result of suspected medical malpractice. The timeline as it has been presented highlights possible shortcomings in the quality of treatment given to Kasireddy Srija, the expectant mother, and calls into question the hospital staff’s accountability and policy.
Severe labor pains brought Kasireddy Srija, a resident of Gundepudi in Maripeda mandal of Mahbubabad district, to the government hospital in Wardhannapet on a Friday night. Dr. Manasa Reddy, the attending physician, is accused of leaving the hospital without doing the required examinations or evaluations on Srija. Rather, she gave the task to the on-call nurses, telling them to take care of the patient and get in touch with her over the phone if something went wrong.
As Srija’s condition deteriorated and she began to have severe labor pains, nurse Sunitha and auxiliary nurse midwife (ANM) Subhadra notified Dr. Manasa Reddy in accordance with protocol. But even though the situation was dire, Dr. Reddy decided not to go back to the hospital. Rather, she persisted in giving directions over the phone—a choice that would turn out to be controversial.
It makes sense that Naresh, Srija’s husband, was worried about his wife’s safety. Seeing how serious her health was, he encouraged the hospital personnel to do a C-section instead of waiting for a typical birth. When there are issues or doubts regarding the mother’s or the child’s safety during a vaginal birth, C-sections are frequently advised. Nevertheless, Dr. Reddy gave the nurses the go-ahead to carry out a routine delivery in accordance with her remote instructions.
Sunitha and Subhadra, the nurses, transported Srija to the labor room and performed the delivery in accordance with their instructions. After Srija gave birth, the nurses moved the baby—ostensibly for a check-up—straight to the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial (MGM) Hospital without letting the parents see him. The family members were suspicious and concerned by this move, especially after learning the next day that the baby had passed away while receiving care at MGM Hospital.
The rest of the family, including Naresh, was distraught and incensed. They thought that rather than choosing to perform a C-section as Naresh had requested, the nurses’ decision to force a normal birth based on instructions given over the phone was the direct cause of the baby’s death. The hospital staff’s alleged carelessness and Dr. Manasa Reddy’s remote case management were the main points of contention for the family. They contended that the tragedy might have been avoided if the doctor had taken a more prompt and proactive approach.
Naresh reported the event in writing to the Wardhannapet police, alleging medical malpractice on the parts of Dr. Manasa Reddy, nurse Sunitha, and ANM Subhadra. The police opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the baby’s death and filed a case under IPC Section 304 (A), which deals with causing death by negligence.
The case has brought to light a number of important problems with the healthcare system, especially in rural and semi-urban areas. There are serious ethical and professional issues when important medical duties are delegated to nurses and midwives while the accountable physician is off-site. As this example shows, such procedures might jeopardize patient safety and have disastrous results.
The story also emphasizes how crucial it is to follow accepted medical procedures and make sure medical professionals are accessible and present in emergency circumstances. Despite the patient’s health and the family’s requests for a C-section, the choice to go ahead with a normal delivery suggests a possible lack of appropriate patient-centered care and a clinical judgment error.
The event also highlights the more general problem of staffing and resource allocation in government hospitals. These facilities frequently have a shortage of staff, and the staff that is on hand may be overworked, which can result in caregiving errors. To avoid such tragedies, healthcare professionals—especially those who work in high-stress environments—need ongoing training and support.
Examining the hospital administration’s response to the situation is also important. The first reaction was to offer condolences and advise against political or other types of divisiveness, according to Bhupendra Raturi, chief public relations officer at the SGRR Institute of Medical and Health Sciences. As important as it is to preserve the integrity of the investigation and refrain from needless sensationalism, the administration must also accept accountability and guarantee transparency when handling the claims of negligence.
While meant to provide background, Raturi’s remarks on Dr. Garg’s prior employment experience and familial pressure to get a postgraduate degree shouldn’t take away from the main concern regarding possible medical negligence. Ensuring justice for the impacted family and implementing corrective actions to stop future occurrences of this kind of disaster should remain the primary priorities.
It is essential that regulatory organizations like the National Medical Commission (NMC) supervise these situations and make sure that medical ethics and standards are followed. It is recommended that the NMC endeavor to enhance the protocols for managing critical situations and guarantee that hospitals have sufficient staffing and equipment to successfully handle crises.
SOURCE:
MEDICAL DIALOGUE
