IMPORTANT POINT
Doctors are the best Judge and they have to take decision which is better and beneficial to patient.

M. Thanikachalam, President—The opposite parties 2, 4 and 3 are the appellants in FA No.667/2007 and 738/2008, respectively.

2. Brief facts, leading to this appeal:

Tmt. Abhirami, (hereinafter called patient) Daughter of the 1st complainant, wife of the 2nd complainant, mother of the 3rd complainant, when she was pregnant second time, had pre-natal checkup under one Dr. Leela Kurian. The said doctor, who checked the patient, cautioned that the 2nd delivery would be a caesarean one. The patient came to Theni, to the house of the 1st complainant, where she had taken treatment with the 1st opposite party hospital, where various tests were conducted. The 1st opposite party hospital, though equipped fully, the 2nd opposite party who attended the patient, requested her to go to M/s Vaigai X-rays, M/s Vikram Scan Diagnostic Centre, for necessary tests, even without answers for the queries, why she had recommended the said X-ray centre, despite 1st opposite party hospital is fully equipped.

3. On 15.5.2004, the patient feeling no movement of the baby, contacted the 2nd opposite party over phone, and she advised to come to the scan centre M/s Vikram Scan Diagnostic, Theni, for scan, and after viewing the scan, of ultrasonic pictures, the 2nd opposite party informed that due to inadequate level of amniotic fluid, caesarean operation may be necessary at the earliest point of time thereby the patient was advised to be admitted in the 5th opposite party hospital, despite treatment was taken in the 1st opposite party hospital, for delivery. Accordingly, the patient was admitted in the 5th opposite party hospital on 16.5.2004 at about 9.30 a.m., and she was informed not only the 2nd opposite party would attend upon the patient, but also the surgery would be performed by the 3rd opposite party.

4. After admission, the patient was not checked properly and not even blood pressure, pulse rate, weights were taken, and till 2.00 p.m., no one attended in the hospital. The 2nd opposite party, who came to the hospital at about 1.00 p.m., at her request, the patient was wheeled into operation theatre at 2.30 p.m., where the anesthetist and 3rd opposite party have entered into theatre at 2.45 p.m. The opposite parties 2 and 3, having fixed the operation at 2.30 p.m., came to the theatre belatedly and obtaining signatures, in the blank forms, the 4th opposite party without anesthetic assessment, has given general anesthesia, even without scanning the X-ray and, radiologist report. Because of the improper treatment or method adopted by the 4th opposite party, the patient suffered breathing difficulties, pulse rate reduced, insisting to put her on artificial breathing. On the same day, at about 6.15 p.m., patient collapsed, which was informed by the 2nd opposite party, admitting the mistake committed by the 2nd and 4th opposite party. By the negligence and carelessness of the 2nd and 4th opposite parties, father lost her daughter at the young age, husband lost the consortium of the wife, baby lost the affection of the mother thereby causing untold sufferings and mental agony to the complainants. The 5th opposite party, being the hospital, is vicariously liable for the negligence committed by the opposite parties 2 to 4, because of the tragic death of a young pregnant woman, at the age of 28 years, the complainant being the legal representative of the deceased, are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,000. Thus levelling negligence and deficiency, originally the complaint was filed only by the father, subsequently the 2nd and 3rd complainants were impleaded, as co-complainants.

5. The 2nd and 4th opposite parties in their separate more or less identical defence, resisted the case as follows:

The 2nd opposite party, is a qualified Gynaecologist, working as consultant Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at various private hospitals at Theni. As a prudent doctor, she has not breached the duty of care, owed to the patient, and infact, she exercised reasonable