Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President;
Pulavar V.S. Kandasamy & Dr. (Tmt.) Angel Arulraj, Members
A. RAVI—Complainant
versus
DR. (MRS.) USHA RANI & ORS.—Opposite Parties
O.P. No. 268 of 1993—Decided on 24.11.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Sriram Panchu, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 1 :Mr. Gopalakrishna Lakshmanaraju, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 2:Mr. S. Natarajan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 3 :Mr. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate.
A consumer is entitled to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if he suffers loss or damage due to deficiency in service on the part of a service provider.
Headnote:
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - FAMILY PLANNING OPERATION - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - COMPENSATION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's wife, Shanthi, underwent a family planning operation at Anand Clinic, owned by the 2nd opposite party, Dr. (Mrs.) Niraimadi Diwakaran. The operation was performed by the 3rd opposite party, Dr. (Mrs.) Adhilakshmi, a surgeon. During the operation, Shanthi developed pain, and the anaesthetist, Dr. Shanthinathan, was called in. Despite efforts to revive her, Shanthi died of cardiac arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 3rd opposite party, Dr. Adhilakshmi, was negligent in performing the operation, which resulted in Shanthi's death. The court held that the complainant was a consumer vis-à-vis the 3rd opposite party and was entitled to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: 1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is a consumer vis-à-vis the 3rd opposite party? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party, Dr. Adhilakshmi, as she was negligent in performing the operation, which resulted in Shanthi's death. 2. The court held that the complainant was a consumer vis-à-vis the 3rd opposite party, as he had engaged her to perform the operation and had promised to pay her a fee. 3. The court held that the complainant was entitled to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had suffered loss of consortium and mental agony and hardship due to the death of his wife.
Final Decision: The court directed the 3rd opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest thereon at 18% per annum till realization. The court also ordered a payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—The complainant’s wife Shanthi was admitted in the Subam Nursing Home of the 1st opposite party Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Rani on 12,8.1992 for delivery. On 13.8.1992 she gave birth to a child. According to the complainant, the 1st opposite party had been advising the complainant’s wife on several occasions to undergo family planning operation to which the complainant and his wife agreed. The 1st opposite party said that the family planning operation could not be done in that Nursing Home but had undertaken to arrange for the same in Anand Clinic of the 2nd opposite party Dr. (MrsJ) Niraimadi Diwakaran which was located near to the Subam Nursing Home. The complainant’s wife was discharged from Subam Nursing Home after he paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the 1st opposite party which amount was to cover the fees for delivery and advance for the family planning operation. The balance was to be paid after the operation. The complainant’s wife was admitted in Anand Clinic. There, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 250/- and the complainant’s wife was assigned a room. The complainant’s wife was in a very good health condition and she was not suffering from any ailment. The 1st, 2nd opposite parries and the 3rd opposite party Dr. (Mrs.) Adhilakshmi were inside the operation theatre during the operation, but there was no Anaesthetist in the operation theatre. The complainant’s wife was taken inside the theatre and 15 minutes after, the 1st opposite party opened the operation theatre doors and rushed to phone to her husband to ask him to bring Dr. Shanthinathan, an Anaesthetist. The 3rd opposite party Doctor followed by the 1st opposite party Doctor came out of the theatre and even without washing her hands she got into her car and left the clinic in a hurry. Within a few minutes after the departure of the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party’s husband brought Dr. Shanthinathan to the theatre. Simultaneously the 2nd opposite party came out and asked the complainant to bring a car or a van immediately. Minutes after Dr. Shanthinathan entered the theatre, he came out. He recognised Shanthi’s father-in-law and signalled with his hands that all was over. Soon after that, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties came out of the theatre with the complainant’s wife in a stretcher and handed over the patient in the stretcher to the complainant. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties did not even whisper a word to anyone about the state of Shanthi when she was handed over. Under the impression that Shanthi was in a serious condition, the complainant took her in a van to Avvai Janaki Hospital where, even before she was taken in, the hospital Doctor came and on examination, pronounced her to be dead. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties, when they handed over Shanthi to the complainant, did not utter even a word as to what was the cause of the death of Shanthi. Later, the complainant came to know from the Hospital staff that Shanthi had been administered local anaesthesia and midway through the operation the effect of the anaesthesia had worn off and Shanthi had sat up and was screaming with pain; the Doctors had administered chloroform and Shanthi was immediately knocked out of consciousness; and it was only after that the 1st opposite party rushed to ring up Dr. Shanthinathan. It was only on 19.8.1992 the 2nd opposite party had reported the death to the Health Inspector concerned that the death was due to cardiac failure. The statement of the 2nd opposite party was totally false. The complainant’s wife died only due to the joint negligence of the opposite parties in the operation theatre. The complainant gave a notice to the opposite parties for payment of compensation, but in vain. On these allegations the complaint has been filed.
2. In the written version filed by the 1st opposite party, it is contended that she never said that Shanthi should undergo family planning operation nor did she undertake to arrange for it in Anand Cli
