Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Thiru N. Rajasekar, Presiding Judicial Member, Thiru S.M. Murugesshan, Member
S. Ramesh Babu & Anr. - Complainants
Versus
Kanyakumari District Co-Operative Society Hospital Ltd. & Ors. - Opposite Parties
C.C. No. 05 of 2012
Decided On : 21-12-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Complainant :Mr. V. Balaji, Advocate, Mr. S. Mohan Doss, Advocate, Mr. K. Mohan Nair, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party Nos. :Mr. K. Mohan Nair, Advocate.

The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur can be applied in cases of medical negligence where the patient was in good health prior to the surgery and the injury occurred during or immediately after the surgery.

Headnote:
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - CAESAREAN SECTION - EXCESSIVE ANAESTHESIA - VEGETATIVE STATE - COMPENSATION - RES IPSA LOQUITUR - VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF HOSPITAL - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - MENTAL AGONY - PAIN AND SUFFERING - INTEREST - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant's wife, Mrs. Shoba, was admitted to the 1st opposite party hospital for delivery. The 2nd opposite party, a gynaecologist, performed a caesarean section on Mrs. Shoba. After the surgery, Mrs. Shoba developed fits and was referred to Dr. Jeyasekaran Hospital in Nagarcoil and then to Sree Chithirai Thirunal Institute of Medical Science in Trivandrum for further treatment. Despite the treatment, Mrs. Shoba remained in a vegetative state. The complainants filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:

The Commission held that the opposite parties were negligent in performing the caesarean section and in providing post-operative treatment. The Commission also held that the 1st opposite party hospital was vicariously liable for the negligence of the 2nd opposite party. The Commission awarded compensation to the complainants for medical expenses, deficiency in service, mental agony, and pain and suffering.
Issues: 1. Whether the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur can be applied in this complaint? 2. Whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 are negligent in performing the surgery on the patient and in providing post-operative treatment? 3. If the medical negligence is established then what are the reliefs to which the complainants are entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commission held that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is applicable to the facts of the case. The Commission noted that the patient was in good health prior to the surgery and that the fits developed after the surgery. The Commission also noted that the opposite parties failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the patient's condition. 2. The Commission held that the opposite parties were negligent in performing the caesarean section and in providing post-operative treatment. The Commission noted that the 2nd opposite party failed to properly assess the patient's condition prior to the surgery and that the 1st opposite party hospital failed to provide adequate post-operative care. 3. The Commission held that the complainants were entitled to compensation for medical expenses, deficiency in service, mental agony, and pain and suffering.
Final Decision: The Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainants. The Commission also directed the opposite parties to pay costs to the complainants.

ORDER :

Thiru N. Rajasekar, Presiding Judicial Member

This complaint has been filed by the complainants under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 being the medical expenses incurred by the complainant, Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and medical negligence committed by the opposite parties during the performance of Caesarian delivery, Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, pain and suffering caused due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and Rs. 25,000 as costs of the complaint.

1. The gist of the complaint allegations is as follows—The 1st complainant consulted the 2nd opposite party regularly for the pregnancy of his wife Mrs. Shoba for delivery of their first child. As per medical advice given by the 2nd opposite party, the 1st complainant had taken his wife Mrs. Shoba for regular medical check-up in the 1st opposite party hospital. The 1st complainant on 3.3.2000 at around 10.00 a.m. admitted his wife Mrs. Shoba in the 1st opposite party hospital for delivery as she developed labour pain. The 2nd opposite party who checked the 1st complainant’s wife, Mrs. Shoba and gave her injection and started I.V. informing the normal delivery. The 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that available symptoms of Mrs. Shoba showed the normalcy and that she would deliver the child at about 11.30 a.m. The 2nd opposite party upon her return to the hospital only at 9.00 p.m. informed the 1st complainant the birth of a healthy female child at 9.50. a.m. The 1st complainant only saw his child by 10.00 p.m. but he was not permitted to see his wife. After much pursuance and compulsions, the complainant saw his wife at 2.30 a.m. on 4.3.2000 in an unconscious state. The 1st complainant having seen his wife with suffering from fits and being unconscious questioned the 2nd opposite party who did not give any proper reply. The 1st complainant to avoid further difficulties requested the 2nd opposite party to refer the matter to Dr. Jeya Sekaran Hospital in Nagarcoi to save his wife life. With such references, the wife of the 1st complainant, Mrs. Shoba was admitted at Dr. Jeyasekaran’s Hospital in Nagarcoil at 4.50 a.m. on 4.3.2000. The 1st complainant’s wife was treated as an in-patient in MCU at Dr. Jeyasekaran’s Hospital, Nagarcoil from 4.3.2000 to 17.4.2000. The 1st complainant came to know that due to excess anaesthesia given by the 3rd opposite party during the caesarian performed for delivering the female child had grossly affected the brain causing unconsciousness and fits to Mrs. Shoba. The 1st complainant’s wife Mrs. Shoba was kept on ventilator support for nearly a month. Mrs. Shoba was wincing to painful and stimulus and remained absolutely immobile and bed-ridden without any meaningful limb movements or spontaneous eye opening.

2. Subsequently, Mrs. Shoba was admitted and treated at Sree Chithirai Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum wherein she was treated from 17.4.2000 to 5.5.2000 and from 20.6.2000 to 27.6.2000 Mrs. Shoba was on ventilator support and she made mild improvement in her cognitive and motor status in the past month. She also developed spontaneous eye movements, word output was nil and started taking oral fluids and feeds. Upon discharge it had been stated that this lady is a case of vegetative state secondary to Hypoxic, Ischemic, Encephalopathy which she probably developed because of status of epilepticus. She needs nursing care and prognosis and is discharged on indwelling Ryles tube and Foleys catheter. The complainant’s wife after her discharge on 27.6.2000 till date remains in the same condition which has shattered the family to the largest extent. Mrs. Shoba does not know the birth of her child which infan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur can be applied in cases of medical negligence where the patient was in good health prior to the surgery and the injury occurred during or immediately after the surgery.

Cases Referred (16)