TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice A. Raman,
President & Tmt. R. Vanaroja, Member
DR. RAMAGURU—Appellant
versus
S. ESSAKIMUTHU—Respondent
A.P. No. 59 of 2000—Decided on 3.2.2005
Medical Negligence - Surgery - Post-operative Complication - Thoracic Outlet Syndrome - Cervical Spondylosis - Right Upper Limb Weakness - Physiotherapy - Disability - Deficiency in Service
Fact of the Case:
The complainant underwent surgery for decompression in his right shoulder but continued to experience pain and right arm disability. The hospital contended that the surgery was conducted carefully and the complainant was irregular in post-operative treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's disability was a post-operative complication and attributable to the surgery, indicating deficiency in service by the hospital.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant's disability was a result of medical negligence or a post-operative complication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the present disability was a consequence of the surgery and a post-operative complication, indicating deficiency in service by the hospital.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower forum's decision of holding the hospital liable for deficiency in service.
Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The complainant had abnormal growth of tissues in his right shoulder and was advised to undergo surgery for decompression. The complainant was admitted in the hospital on 23.5.1998 and he was operated upon. In spite of operation, he continued to experience pain in his shoulder and the right arm. He is not able to move his hand. Therefore, he had go to Chennai to consult the doctor in the Railway Hospital, but they were also not in a position to help the complainant. Therefore, alleging deficiency, the complaint has been laid against the opposite party.
2. The opposite party contended that the complainant came with a history of pain in his shoulder and right hand loss of sensation and diminished vascularity. He was admitted in Jeyaraj Annapackiam Mission Hospital, Palayamkottai on 23.5.1998 for operation of right I Rib removal to decompress the neuro vacular bundle. The operation was done very carefully observing all formalities and the complainant was advised to follow certain post operative treatment. But the complainant was irregular and irresponsible. Thus there was no deficiency in service.
3. The lower Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.
4. That the complainant was admitted for surgery in C.S.I. Jeyaraj Annapackiam Mission Hospital, Palayamkottai and the operation was done by the opposite party is not challenged. The complainant had complained of shoulder pain and the right hand. According to the opposite party since it required surgery for removal of abnormal growth of tissues and decompress the neural or vascular structures, such a surgery was conducted to release the muscles and ease the movement of muscles and blood flow. It is also seen from the records that the complainant was treated as an inpatient for 5 days after the operation. The complainant would allege that even after operation, there was no improvement. His case is that when he went to the hospital at Madras and consulted the doctor there, the doctor who examined him stated that some vein has been cut. According to the complainant, he is not able to move his arms at all and is thus suffering disability which is only attributable to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the Thoracic Outlet Syndrome is a long procedure and it will take long time for complete cure and that after operation, the patient has to undergo physiotherapy. It is further stated that the complainant did not heed the advice of the doctor and did not follow certain post-operative treatment and thus was irregular and irresponsible. From the records produced we see that after surgery the complaint of severe pain on the right shoulder and numbness on the right hand was no longer there. But his case is that he is not able to grip anything with his right hand. The certificate Ex. A8 issued by the Railway Doctor shows that the complainant is suffering from cervical spondylosis with brachia neuralgia of right upper limb. According to the said certificate, the patient is having weakness of the right forearm and hand functions involving the grip. Thus, we find that the complainant has some problem now. But whether the said problem is attributable as a consequence of the surgery done on him by the opposite party is a question to be decided. The complainant was examined by the Railway Doctor on 1.12.1998. He underwent surgery at the hands of the opposite party in May, 1998. Though the opposite party has produced the case sheet, the opposite party has not chosen to take the witness stand or subject himself to cross-examination. On the other hand, the certificate issued by the Railway Doctor mentions that it is due to post transauxillary rib resection. The complainant underwent operation at the hands of the opposite party because he had pain in the shoulder and arm. But now after the operation we find that he has developed weakness of the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.