The mother-in-law of the woman who died after giving birth to the defendant, i.e. the doctor, “You can’t do it; you did it to us, don’t do it to others” (video, photographs)16:57, July 13, 2018 | News, Own news | Right to Life
On July 11, 2016, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Lori Region presided by S. Gzogyan, continued to examine the evidence in the case of Hripsime Nazlukhanyan, the woman who died at Vanadzor Medical Center in October 2016 and then heard the legal successor of the victim and one of the witnesses.
David Shahverdyan, senior obstetrician-gynecologist at Vanadzor Medical Center, is accused of causing the new mother’s death. A charge was brought against him under Article 130 § 2 of the RA Criminal Code for failure to implement/improper implementation of professional duties, which caused the patient’s death.
HCA Vanadzor advocate Ani Chatinyan represents the interests of the victim’s legal successor before the Court.
The Court continued to examine the evidence. In addition to the other evidence, Prosecutor G. Manukyan submitted David Shahverdyan’s employment contract and the licenses granted to him and the types of medical assistance envisaged by the clinical guidebook in the given situation.
With regard to that, Defender A. Voskanyan made a statement and mentioned that the indictment was based on a document the validity period of which had expired; the license granted to David Shahverdyan expired in 2000. Since 2001, no licensing of medical personnel has been carried out in the RA. Following this, he added that to this day Shahverdyan has been performing his professional activity on the basis of a document that has no legal force.
In response, Prosecutor G. Manukyan clarified for the Defender that “the charge has not been brought for having or not having a license; the accusation is first based on the permit of the authorized body, then the employment contract and only then the licenses.”
The Court also presented the documents characterizing the defendant and the certificates granted to him.
Following this, the victim’s legal successor Hamlet Ghukasyan, the deceased woman’s husband, was questioned. He told about the circumstances of the event that were known to him. In response to the questions by the parties, he said that Hripsime did not have any complaints before the delivery and there were no particular problems. Only 21 days before the delivery, the polyclinic doctor referred her to Vanadzor Maternity Hospital, where David Shahverdyan assured that there were no serious problems; because of the age of the pregnant woman, she just had to be under supervision.
20 minutes after the delivery, he talked to his wife on the phone and saw her and the baby through the window. Later, they went home and, after Hripsime alerted that she was feeling bad, they instantly went to hospital, where the doctors first informed that the uterus had to be removed. The doctors got the consent to do it and then a little later informed that they did not manage to save the woman’s life.
Prosecutor G. Manukyan maintained that there were some differences between the pre-investigation testimonies and the testimonies given at the Court; in particular, the differences were connected with time. The Prosecutor suggested publicizing the pre-investigation testimonies. The parties did not object. H. Ghukasyan confirmed that the publicized information was true.
Following this, witness in the case Knarik Mnatsakanyan, the deceased woman’s mother-in-law, was questioned.
She also told about the antenatal period and the day of delivery. She indicated that after the delivery, when they had gone home to have a rest and to celebrate the baby’s birth, at around 8.30 pm she got a call from Hripsime, who said that she was feeling very bad and was all by herself in the ward and asked her mother-in-law to go to the hospital quickly. As reported by the witness, their phone call was interrupted by Hripsime’s loud scream, after which Hripsime did not answer her calls. She had a doubt that the death came at that very moment, and the further actions of the doctors were aimed at gaining time.
The witness told that after the event her son was in a grave state psychologically and then, turning to the defendant, she tearfully urged, “You can’t do it; you did it to use, don’t do it to others.”
Due to the Court being overloaded, the other witness was not questioned. The latter is to be questioned at the next court session, which is set to be held at 4.00 pm on July 25, 2018.