A. J. SADASHIVA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 195 of 1983 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, mangalore, have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29,10. 1988 passed therein awarding damages in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in respect of their alleged medical negligence.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3 are the plaintiff Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the court below and respondent No. 4 was the defendant No. 3 joined as such at the application of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 2, the victim of the negligence, died on 25. 10. 1985 during the pendency of the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to with reference to their rank in the trial court.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts leading to the judgment and decree under appeal are as follows: the deceased plaintiff No. 2 was the wife of the plaintiff No. 1 and the mother of plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4. She consulted the defendant No. 1 in respect of certain breathing problems and pain in the neck. The defendant No. 1 on examination found that she had developed non-toxic adenoma of thyroid and requires surgery. He accordingly advised her to undergo surgery. That, in the month of May, 1981 to be precise, she got herself admitted to Ramakrishna nursing Home belonging to the defendant no. 2 on the evening of 5. 8. 1981. The defendant No, 2 is an anaesthetist besides being the owner of the nursing home. On 6. 8. 1981, the defendant No. 1 with the assistance of defendant No. 2 and his staff performed surgery. After surgery, plaintiff no. 2 was shifted to ward No. 15 in an unconscious state. It is not disputed that the plaintiff No. 2 did not regain her consciousness till she died on 25. 10. 1985. However, she was discharged from the nursing home on 6. 12,1981.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for damages in a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 but confined it only for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000, alleging medical negligence. It was specifically contended by the plaintiffs that Ramakrishna nursing Home belonging to defendant No. 2 was suggested by defendant No. 1 with the sole object of helping his friend even though it was not fully equipped. It was their case that even the basic necessities such as oxygen cylinders were not available. They have further contended that 14 types of pre-operative tests required to be done in such type of operations were not conducted. More serious allegations were that the consent of the patient or her husband was not obtained in writing even though it was not a case of emergency. That, on the first incision over the neck of the patient, the defendant found that there was no blood circulation and the B. P. was low and it was only after the lower position of the patient was elevated, palpating the carotid pulse and external cardiac massage, B. P. rose and at that time the defendant ought to have stopped the operation but they have recklessly continued the operation in spite of the fact that they could very well anticipate hypoxia resulting in cardiac arrest in such a condition and thus they have failed to maintain the high standards of professional conduct in dealing with their patient. They have further alleged that the defendants failed to warn the risk involved in the operation to the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and that they have failed to use diligence, care, knowledge, skill and caution in administering the treatment and damage to the brain was caused to the plaintiff No. 2 for want of competent care and skill on the part of the defendants in dealing with the patient so lightly and carelessly. The plaintiffs have further alleged certain ill-treatment by the defendant No. 2 during their stay in the nursing home such as denial of nursing facilities, negligence in treatment, etc.

( 5 ) THE defendants having entered appearance filed their written statement separately, inter alia, denying the allegations of negligence.

( 6 ) IN view of the controversy between the parties the trial cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document