Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT; THIRU J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER & TMT. P. BAKIAVATHIY, MEMBER
R. LAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
ROYAPETTAH GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL – Respondent
C.C. No. 19 of 2008
Decided On : 10-10-2014
For the Appellant :M/s. D. Mari Rose Poongothai and D. Lakshmi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. T. Ravikumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Compensation - Consumer Protection Act - Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), Smt. Savita Garg v. The Director, National Heart Institute, VI (2004) SLT 385, V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Anr., V (2010) SLT 349, Nizam Institutue of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhanaka and Others, III (2010) SLT 734=2009 INDLAW 1047 (SC)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's son suffered medical negligence and deficiency in service at a government hospital, resulting in the amputation of his left hand. The complainant sought compensation for the physical and mental suffering of her son and family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the hospital and doctors, leading to the amputation of the boy's hand. The court held the complaint maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and awarded the complainant a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as compensation.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. 2. Existence of negligence or deficiency in service. 3. Entitlement of the complainant to claim compensation. 4. Relief the complainant is entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence in the absence of medical evidence. It also emphasized the liability of government hospitals and doctors for negligence under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The complaint was partly allowed, directing the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service, physical sufferings, loss of earning power, and mental agony. The opposite party was also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant.
ORDER :
THIRU J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The case of the complainant as per the amended complaint is as follows:
On 16.1.2006, the complainant’s son R. Vishnu, aged about 8 years, had gone to Guindy Children’s Park along with his relatives to celebrate Kanum Pongal and while playing there he fell down and his left wrist got injured and he was taken to nearby hospital at Guindy where he was given first-aid treatment and was advised to take him to some other hospital. The complainant comes from a very poor family and so she was unable to take her son to private hospital and therefore he was taken to Royapettah Government Hospital, Chennai. The duty doctors of the Ortho Department in the Royapettah Government Hospital applied Mavukattu (Plaster of Paris bandage) in the left hand and asked the complainant to come again on 18.1.2006 and on 18.1.2006, the doctors who gave treatment to her son on 16.1.2006 were present and the complainant told the doctors that her son has been suffering more pain and the doctors removed the Mavukattu a little bit and injected incisive over the injured hole in the left hand. On 20.1.2006, again they went to the opposite party hospital and on that date X-ray was taken for which the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 10 and the complainant paid the same for which a receipt was given only on 6.2.2006. Again they applied Plaster of Paris bandage on the left hand and gave medicines and when the complainant told the doctors that her son was crying in the night due to severe pain and she requested the doctors to loosen the bandage a little bit, the doctors told the complainant that they cannot remove the bandage. The next day, on 21.1.2006, the complainant noticed some smoke coming out from the bandage and her son started crying painfully and before taking him to the nearest hospital his left hand fingers burst and pus came out and they went to the nearby hospital i.e., Sarathy Nursing Home and the duty doctors advised the complainant to take him to the opposite party hospital where he had already taken treatment. The complainant along with her son went to the opposite party hospital at about 8.00 p.m. but the doctors of the Ortho Department did not care for her son and the complainant and her relatives begged the doctors to attend on her son and the doctors at last removed the bandage only in the midnight at about 1.00 a.m. and after removing the bandage, the doctors advised the complainant to take her son to the Government General Hospital, Chennai immediately and fearing danger to her son the complainant and her relatives took him to Government General Hospital, Chennai.
2. The doctors in the General Hospital told the complainant that it was a simple injury for which the doctors in Royapettah Government Hospital had applied Mavukattu which blocked the blood circulation, as a result of which the left hand was decomposed and if the left hand was not removed by surgery his life would be in danger and not knowing what to do the complainant gave consent for the surgery and on 22.1.2006, in the morning the left hand of her son was surgically removed.
3. All these happened only because of the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the doctors at Royapettah Government Hospital who gave treatment to him.
4. The boy was an in-patient in the Government Hospital and after discharge he was admitted in school. In spite of several attempts, the complainant could not get the names of the doctors who gave treatment to her son at Royapettah Government Hospital. She incurred huge expenses. Her son was studying in 3rd Standard in St. Mark High School, and he was good in his studies and sports and he was very soft in nature and character and after losing his left hand he became physically handicapped and could not concentrate in his study and he became very rough in his behaviour. The complainant, her husband and son suffered severe mental agony and they are very poor and her husband was working as coolie earning mea
