Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO
Pinnamaneni Narsimha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Gundavarapu Jaya Prakash - Respondent
Decided On : 02-01-89
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - CAUSATION - DAMAGES - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - STANDARD OF CARE - RES IPSA LOQUITUR - CONSENT - DUTY OF CARE - BREACH OF DUTY - NEGLIGENCE - DAMAGES - QUANTUM - PAIN AND SUFFERING - LOSS OF AMENITIES - FUTURE PECUNIARY LOSS - INTEREST - COURT FEES - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - ABATEMENT OF SUIT - DECREE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a brilliant 17-year-old student, underwent a tonsillectomy operation at a government hospital. The operation was performed by the second defendant, an ENT surgeon, and the third defendant, an anesthetist. During the operation, the plaintiff suffered respiratory and cardiac arrest, which led to cerebral anoxia and permanent brain damage. The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages, alleging negligence. The first defendant, the government, claimed vicarious liability for the acts of the second and third defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the brain damage suffered by the plaintiff was due to the negligence of the second and third defendants. The court held that the second defendant was negligent in proceeding with the operation without verifying the plaintiff's condition and in failing to take steps to resuscitate the plaintiff when respiratory arrest occurred. The court also held that the third defendant was negligent in failing to administer oxygen to the plaintiff before and after the operation and in failing to take steps to resuscitate the plaintiff when respiratory arrest occurred. The court further held that the first defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of the second and third defendants.
Issues: 1. Whether the brain damage suffered by the plaintiff was due to the negligence of the defendants 2 and 3? 2. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative whether the damages awarded by the court below are inadequate in the circumstances?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the brain damage suffered by the plaintiff was due to the negligence of the second and third defendants. The court relied on the expert medical evidence, which established that the brain damage was caused by cerebral anoxia, which was the result of improper induction of anesthesia and the failure to take immediate steps to reduce anesthesia and anoxia. The court also found that the second defendant was negligent in proceeding with the operation without verifying the plaintiff's condition and in failing to take steps to resuscitate the plaintiff when respiratory arrest occurred. The court further found that the third defendant was negligent in failing to administer oxygen to the plaintiff before and after the operation and in failing to take steps to resuscitate the plaintiff when respiratory arrest occurred. 2. The court held that the damages awarded by the court below were inadequate in the circumstances. The court considered the plaintiff's age, his brilliant academic record, his future prospects, and the permanent nature of his injuries. The court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 50,000 in damages, with interest at 12% from the date of the suit till realization.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's cross-objections and increased the damages awarded by the court below to Rs. 50,000. The court also dismissed the defendants' appeals.
( 1 ) THE two appeals and the cross objections arise out of the judgmentof the learned First Additional District Judge, Guntur in O. S. No. 34 of 1969 granting a decree for Rs. 22,000/- in favour of the plaintiff towards damages for performing tonsillectomy operation on the plaintiff in a careless and negligent manner. The second defendant Dr. P. Narasimha Rao was the e. N. T. Surgeon who performed the tonsillectomy operation upon the plaintiff at the Government General Hospital, Guntur and the third defendant dr. S. Shankar Rao was the Chief Anaesthetist of the Hospital who adminitered anaesthetics at the time of the operation. The first defendant is the government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, guntur who according to the plaintiff is vicariously liable for damages since the alleged act of negligence was committed by the defendants 2 and 3 in the course of discharging their duties as employees of the State Government.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff was a brilliant youngster aged 17 years in 1966 whenhe passed the P. U. C. (Pre University Course) examination securing 100% in mathematics and 93. 5% in Physical Sciences. He was a State Government merit scholor getting a monthly scholorship of Rs. 100/ -. He was offered a seat in B. E. Degree course in four Engineering Colleges both within and out side the State of Andhra Pradesh. He had a minor ailment chronic nasal discharge for which his mother took him to the second defendant Dr. Narasimha Rao lor consultation. The plaintiff s father at that time was working as Senior Officer at Nagpur in the service of the Central Government. The second defendant diagnosed the disease as Nasal Allergy and suggested operation for removal of tonsils. On 6-7-66 the plaintiff was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Guntur and the operation was performed on the morning of 7-7-66. His father came down to Guntur to be present at the time of the operation. None of the relations of the plaintiff including his father were allowed to be present inside the operation theatre and so what happened in the operation theatre at the time of the operation was within the exclusive knowledge of defendants 2 and 3. About one and half hours after the plaintiff was taken inside the operation theatre, he was brought out in an unconscious state and the doctors informed the plaintiff s father that he would regain consciousness within three or four hours. The plaintiff was kept in the E. N. T. Ward of the hospital. For the next three days he did not regain consciousness and thereafter for another fifteen days he was not able to speak coherently. The treatment was entrusted to two other doctors of the same hospital Dr. Mallikarjuna Rao, physician and Dr. Suryanarayana, Psychiatrist. He was discharged from the Hospital on 28-8-66 and his condition at ths time of the discharge was that he was just able to recognise the persons around and utter a few words. He could not even read or write numericals. He lost all the knowledge and learning acquired by him. Greatly upset by the condition of the plaintiff his father took him to Vellore where he was examined by P. W-1 Dr. K V. Mathai, Professor of Neuro Surgery, Christian Medical College Hospital, vellore. After conducting neurological examination and after studying the csse history, on 21-11-66 Dr. Mathai gave a written opinion Ex. A-1 stating that the plaintiff had cerebral damage and his intellectual ability was that of a boy of five years age in relation to calculations, reading and understanding. The plaintiff was then taken to Bangalore where he was exmined by Dr. S. A. Ansari, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the Indian Institute of medical Health on 28-11-66. After conducting certain tests and studying the case papers the doctor found the plaintiff to be mentally defective. His I. Q. as against the normal 100 was only 60. There was organic brain damage which was due to cerebral anoxia the damage to nerve cells was total and irre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
