IMPORTANT POINT
Separate consent is not required where life of patient is at stake.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Late Dr. S.J.S. Paul, husband of the complainant No.2 and father of complainant No. 3 and 5 and aged about 60 years at the relevant time was diagnosed with High Stenosis. Based upon the angiography report revealing the aforesaid ailment, he consulted opposite party No.2 Dr. Mullasari Ajith, who advised him to undergo CABG surgery. He allegedly told the patient that the aforesaid surgery was a safe procedure with complication rate of less than one percent. Opposite party No.3 Dr. Rajan told him that the aforesaid was a simple procedure and he could resume normal work after two weeks. On 09.7.2007, late Dr. Paul was admitted in Madras Medical Mission Hospital and the prescribed surgery was performed on 11.7.2007. After the surgery, he was shifted to ICU. It is alleged that late Dr. Paul was not connected to Pulse oximeter, which was necessary to monitor the saturation level and the relatives were not allowed to stay with the patient. In the morning of 13.7.2007, complainant No.3, who had been waiting outside the ICU to meet her father, was informed by the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital that her father had respiratory arrest the previous night. On enquiry, the complainants were informed that since Dr. Paul had developed respiratory problem in the ICU, his chest had to be reopened and the same had then been left open when hemodynamic parameters fell down during attempt to close the chest. The case of the complainants is that late Dr. Paul developed respiratory problem on account of negligence during the post-operative stage. In this regard it is also alleged that on several occasions, the complainant found the ICU to be without doctors and even the nursing staff was inadequate. This is also the case of the complainant that leaving the operated part of the chest open further exposed Dr. Paul to severe problems, infection, bleeding, septicemia etc. This is also their case that no consent from them was taken either for opening the chest or for later closing the same. Yet another allegation of the complainants is that the opposite parties delayed consultation with a Neurologist, who came to be consulted after 8.00 p.m. on 13.7.2007. On 15.7.2007, Dr. Paul was allegedly subjected to Apnoea test which is done to ascertain whether a person is brain dead or not. But no prior consent was taken from them to conduct the said test. Dr. Paul remained in comatose state and on life support system with irreversible brain damage from 15.7.2007 onwards. Eventually he was declared dead on 28.7.2007. The delay in resuscitation, according to the complainants, has been suggested as the most probable cause of severe brain damage. This is also the allegation of the complainants that opposite party altered the preliminary history of Dr. Paul in the death summary in order to show family history of heart disease, whereas in fact he had no such family history. It is further alleged that though in the discharge summary, there was no reference to Dr. Paul having Dyspnoea, the words DOE which are the abbreviation for Dyspnoea, were used in the death summary. It is also alleged that on several occasions, Dr. Paul was not connected to Pulse Oximeter nor competent staff remained present regularly in the ICU. Alleging negligence in the treatment of late Dr. Paul, the complainants are before this Commission, seeking compensation as detailed herein below:

1. Rs. Fifty Lacs to the Complainants No. 2 to 6 towards compensation for loss of income;

2. Rs. Fifty One Lacs to complainants No. 2 to 6 as compensation for loss of companionship, mental trauma and harassment;

3. Rs. Sixty Lacs & Seventy Thousand towards expenses incurred in the hospital;

4. A sum of about Rs.4.5 lacs incurred by the complainants in bringing doctor from abroad to India;

5. Rs. Twenty Lacs to the Complainants No. 2 to 6 as punitive damages.

2. The complaint has been opposed by the opposite party No.1 Madras Medical Mission, which has also filed the affidavit