The woman's husband complained to Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Jim Martin about the care Grampian NHS Board gave his wife during the later stages of her pregnancy.
The Ombudsman has now found the monitoring of her pregancy was "not of a reasonable standard".
The couple's baby was born about three months early at Aberdeen Maternity Hospital in April last year, weighing just 400 grams.
The baby girl was said to be in a very poor condition and died about an hour after she had been delivered by doctors, who had carried out a caesarean section.
The woman - who is only identified as Mrs C - was admitted to the hospital in March 2012 when she was 25 weeks pregnant for monitoring as she had a "complex past obstetric history" and had developed gestational diabetes during pregnancy.
Her baby was delivered just over two weeks later, with doctors deciding to stop resuscitation efforts about five minutes after the infant was born.
Mr Martin has now upheld a complaint that NHS Grampian failed to adequately manage later stages of the woman's pregnancy and failed to adequately communicate with the baby's parents.
In his report, Mr Martin said the couple had had an "exceptionally difficult and distressing experience".
He said the monitoring of Mrs C before the birth was "not of a reasonable standard for properly managing this critical period".
His report said: "Advanced screening techniques were not used at any time to assess whether delivery was an appropriate option or to determine whether prolongation of the pregnancy could be allowed instead."
He said it was a "serious concern" that the "only option seemingly presented to them to secure any chance of Baby C's survival was a caesarean section", adding advisers had described this as "controversial" given the small size of the baby.
His report also highlighted "failure" of the neonatal team to fully discuss the situation with the couple prior to the surgery.
The report said: "Although Mr and Mrs C had been made aware of Baby C's poor prognosis, they had also been advised that a caesarean section was the 'best' option at that stage, and had received no information about the likelihood that Baby C would not respond to resuscitation.
"It was clearly known to the medical staff at that time that survival was unlikely, but it should not have been assumed that Mr and Mrs C would have been aware that resuscitation would most likely not have been successful.
"They had different expectations because of the information given, or not given, to them."
His report added: "It is, of course, extremely important to recognise that the outcome for Baby C was highly unlikely to have been any different given she was severely growth restricted."
Upholding the complaint, Mr Martin said: "I am not satisfied that Mrs C's pregnancy was managed adequately in its later stages given the failings and omissions identified.
"Furthermore, given the decision to perform a caesarean section did not appear to have been taken with all the necessary monitoring having occurred or the appropriate strategy in place, I also reach the view that Baby C's birth was not properly managed."
The Ombudsman said the decision to stop resuscitation treatment minutes after the little girl was born was "appropriate", stating the infant was "not able to sustain life on her own".
He also said he was "disappointed" the NHS board had not provided his office with all relevant information on the case until the "final fact-checking stage".
Mr Martin said this "undoubtedly hampered our investigations, caused increased stress and distress for the family involved" and was "totally unacceptable, as well as unprofessional".
The Ombudsman has now made a series of recommendations to the NHS board.
As well as suggesting they apologise, he said NHS Grampian should consider introducing guidelines for the management of foetuses that are small for their gestational age.
An NHS Grampian spokesman said: "NHS Grampian accepts the recommendations in the Ombudsman's report.
"Most have already been actioned and the remainder will be implemented within the completion dates in the report. The Ombudsman will be notified when they are in place.
"We are sorry for the distress caused to the family and will be writing formally to them to apologise. The report will be shared with the clinical staff involved."
He added: "We note the Ombudsman's criticism of our failure to provide documentation in the early stages of his enquiry.
"We acknowledge falling well short of our normally high standards on this occasion and apologise unreservedly to the Ombudsman."