Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President;
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt & Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Members
MRS. SAVITRI DEVI—Complainant
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.—Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 24 of 2000—Decided on 28.1.2002
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. H.S. Lali, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. K.C. Sahu, Govt. Pleader.
For the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 6 :Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o)-Medical negligence-Surgery by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy-Death of patient on day of operation-Patient aged 68 years was admitted in hospital for removal of his gall-bladder which had stones-Adhesions in region of gall-bladder resulting in profuse bleeding-Doctors decision to perform open surgery in place of surgery by Laparoscopic method-Patient had 2nd cardiac arrest during surgery-Patient died in spite of efforts made at his resuscitation-Not a case of per se negligence and carelessness-Wrong mention of time of death held immaterial.
It is the surgeon who has to consider and take a decision while performing a surgery as to what is best in the interest of the patient and for the successful performance of the surgery, he takes decisions which are to be taken at the spur of the moment. Such decisions cannot be found fault with and said to amount to medical negligence and carelessness.
In the instant case, the complainant has failed to show that the opposite parties were guilty of medical negligence and carelessness in performing surgery on the patient Shri H.L. Sharma. It is unfortunate that Shri H.L. Sharma died due to the cardiac arrest suffered by him after surgery.
So far as the other contention regarding the actual death of Shri H.L. Sharma patient in the operation theatre is concerned, it is sufficient to point out that Dr. M.S. Sekhon in his affidavit has clearly and categorically mentioned that the patient Shri H.L. Sharma was alive at the time when he was operated upon. The mere over writing in the time mentioned in the notes of the medical record or for that matter, wrong reference to the time of 4.45 p.m. in the reply notes will not be sufficient to hold that the patient did not die at 5.45 p.m. Even if it be assumed for a moment that the patient had died at 4.45p.m. as mentioned in the reply, it does not advance the case of the complainant because the death in any case took place after the surgery was completed.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—In this complaint filed under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act), the complainant Smt. Savitri Devi widow of late Shri H.L. Sharma prays for compensation of Rs. 18 lacs against Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Delhi, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh through its Home Secretary, Government Medical College, Hospital (for short hereinafter referred to as GMCH) Sector 32, Chandigarh through its Director Principal, Doctors M.S. Sekhon, R.K. Batra, Miss Menakshi of GMCH aforesaid for carelessness and negligence during Laproscopic Cholecytectomy, leading to the death of her husband on the day of operation performed on 22.6.1999 itself, around 5.45 p.m. Late Shri H.L. Sharma aged about 68 years, resident of House No. 405, Sector 5, Panchkula was admitted in GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh on 21.6.1999 for surgery by Laproscopic Cholecytectomy for removal of his gallbladder which had stones and due to which Shri H.L. Sharma was suffering. Shri H.L. Sharma got ultra-sound done under the advice of Dr. Mirchia from Dr. (Mrs.) Walia’s Ultra-sound X-Ray Centre, Chandigarh. A copy of the ultra-sound report dated 21.6.1999 is annexed as Annexure C-1. The ultra-sound report showed no abnormality in the body system of Shri H.L. Sharma and he was found to be fit and fine. It has been alleged that Dr. Dalal of GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh was to perform surgery on the husband of the complainant and the operation was fixed for 22.6.1999. The husband of the complainant was detailed on turn No. 6 for surgery operation. All the requisite tests were conducted and everything was found perfectly fine except a small stone in the gallbladder. Since Dr. Dalal who was to operate originally was not present in the Operation Theatre on 22.6.1999, the surgery was performed around 12 p.m. by the team of surgeons headed by the opposite party No. 4 - Dr. M.S. Sekhon. The other two members were opposite party No. 5 - Dr. R.K. Batra and opposite party No. 6 - Dr. Miss Meenakshi. The complainant and other family members were waiting outside the Operation Theatre. The operation, as per doctors assessment was to last not more than half an hour. However, after about 45 minutes, Dr. Miss Meenakshi came out of the Operation Theatre and contacted the complainant and her son Ravinder to append signatures on another sheet and informed that the condition of Shri H.L. Sharma in the Operation Theatre was precarious and another surgery was to be performed. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 6 at that time was nervous and upset, apologetic and it could be inferred that something had gone wrong in the Operation Theatre. The complainant was informed that six units of blood had to be arranged immediately for the surgery and consequently made arrangements of six units of blood. During this period, opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 also came out of the Operation Theatre and joined opposite party No. 6 and were discussing something. It has been alleged that Shri H.L. Sharma breathes his last and was pronounced dead around 5.45 p.m. and his body was brought outside the Operation Theatre. The allegation of the complainant is that the death of Shri H.L. Sharma during the course of surgery happened due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 who also committed forgery and fabrication in the hospital records.
2. A legal notice dated 9.8.1999 was served on the opposite parties demanding a sum of Rs. 40 lacs towards damages due to untimely and torturous demise of the complainant whose life, it is alleged, was curtailed owing to negligence act of the opposite parties. The notices were initially not received by the opposite parties. The complainant was entirely dependent upon her husband and the death of her husband put her virtually on road. At the time of his death Shri H.L. Sharma, it is alle
