SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Vijay Health Centre & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Chandra Das & Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 389, 391 & 399 of 2010
Decided on 1.5.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Ms. Asmita Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: For Prof. N. Rangabashyam: Nemo
For the Mr. Chandra Das:Mr. Sudarsh Menon, Advocate For Dr. Krishna Rao & M/s Chennai Willingdon
For the Corporate Foundation:Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate
For the Dr. Hariharan:Mr. M. Padhi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor is applicable in a case of medical negligence.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Medical services—Medical negligence—Complications surfaced after Laparoscopic Adhesinolysis—Complainant was confined to bed for more than one year—Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor is applicable in this case—Total Rs.6,00,000/- compensation granted by State Commission to complainant is just and proper—Order passed by State Commission modified. (Paras 14 to 19)

       Result: Appeals dismissed.

       

ORDER

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member—This order shall decide above mentioned four first appeals. The facts are taken from first appeal No. 391 of 2010. The parties are placed in their respective positions as in the original complaint that Mrs. Chandra Das as a Complainant, M/s Chennai Willingdon Corporate Foundation is opposite party No. 1, Dr. Krishna Rao is opposite party No. 2, Vijay Health Centre is opposite party No. 3, Dr. Hariharan is opposite party No. 4 and Professor N. Rangabashyam is opposite party No. 5.

2. The brief facts are that the complainant, Mrs. Chandra Das, (hereinafter referred as ‘the patient’) took treatment from opposite parties at different stages. On 30.9.1995, the OP-2 performed operation of patient at OP 1/hospital, it was laparoscopic adhesiolysis. During this operation, small intestine was punctured, which was not noticed by OP 2, therefore, on 2.10.1995, OP-2 performed laparotomy, corrected the leak by re-suturing, but no avail. Subsequently, the patient developed severe infection, discharge from abdominal cavity, but OP 2 did not attend. The patient was discharged on 8.10.1995, then taken to Vijaya Health Centre- OP 3, for further treatment. There, from 14th - 21st October, 1995 the OP-4 Dr.Hariharan, treated her, made 9 interventions to control the discharge, but the condition of complainant further deteriorated. The patient remained in OP 3/hospital for almost three months. In the mean time, the patient was sent to Dr. Bhooshanam, at Christian medical College Hospital, Vellore, (hereinafter referred as CMC Hospital), which resulted in vain. Since Dr.Bhooshanam wanted to study the patient’s aliments, taking a month’s time, therefore, the patient came back to OP-3 hospital, then she was discharged from OP 3/Hospital on 30.1.1996, who in turn, returned to Madras and got admitted in Ramana Surgical Clinic, Madras, on 7.2.1996. There, the OP 5, Dr. N. Rangabhashyam performed operation of “Resection Anastomosis”. Patient got complete cure and she was discharged on 13.3.1996. Therefore, alleging negligence committed by OPs 1 to 4, due to which the complainant was confined to bed for more than one year, she filed a complaint before the State Commission, Chennai and prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs.

3. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the OP 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- plus Rs. 5000/- as costs, and the opposite parties 3 and 4 to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, jointly and severally, to the complainant.

4. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, four first appeals were filed before this Commission. The complainant; Smt. Chandra Das filed first appeal No. 391 of 2010 for enhancement of compensation, whereas the OPs filed three separate first appeals for dismissal of complaint.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued and reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint whereas the counsel for OP 1 and 2 argued that the OP-2 operated the patient with proper care. There was no negligence. The patient suffered perforation due to extensive adhesions. Counsel brought our attention to several medical records and discharge summary and explained the sequence of events from 29.9.1995 till the discharge of patient i.e. 10.10.1995 from OP-1 hospital.

6. Learned counsel for OP 3, Ms. Ashmita Singh, vehemently argued that OP 3 is a medical center only, therefore, doesn’t maintain patient’s records. The medical records are with the concerned treating doctor. OP-3 provides infrastructure facilities, like operation theatre, nursing care, etc In the instant case also, the entire medical records were in possession of OP No. 4 i.e. Dr. Hariharan, therefore, liability cannot be fastened upon OP3.

7. Mr. M. Padhi, learned counsel for OP 4/Dr. Hariharan argued that the OP 4/Dr. Hariharan made almost 11 interventions during the stay at OP 3/hospital. He further submitted that,

“a. On 17.10.1995 under gener































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top