Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Dr. K.B. Venugopal (Formerly Opthalmology Professor) – Appellant
Versus
Remadevi D/o Alukandiparambil Kalikutty Amma – Respondent
R.F.A. Nos. 271, 333 of 2007, 622 of 2010, Co. No. 17 of 2020
Decided On : 14-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. K. Mohanakannan, Smt. M.A. Zohra.
For the Respondents: Sri. P.B. Krishnan, Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, Sri. Krishna Pradeep, Sri. P.B. Krishnan, Sri. Mathews Jacob, Sri. N.P. Samuel, Sri. M.V. Anandan, Sri. Jayakumar K.
Important points:
The ‘Inflation Tool’ available in the internet site of ‘Google’ to lend support to his submissions and has also produced the copies of the information available on internet as to the Inflation Timelines in India and the ‘Compound Interest Formula’ applicable, to assert that Rs. 4 lakhs at the time of filing of the suit would be equivalent or much more than Rs. 25 lakhs today
Headnote:
The Code of Civil Procedure- Section 80 –Medical Negligence-The ‘Inflation Tool’ available in the internet site of ‘Google’- Produced the copies of the information available on internet as to the Inflation Timelines in India and the ‘Compound Interest Formula’ applicable, to assert that Rs. 4 lakhs at the time of filing of the suit would be equivalent or much more than Rs. 25 lakhs today-
Statement of facts:
The life of Smt. Rema Devi, a sprightly 15 year old, full of life, good in studies - with the promise of a highly productive life - was horribly and irreversibly altered in August, 1987; when she frighteningly realised that she was unable to see and had lost her sight - not on account of ailment or natural causes - but due to iatrogenic errors at the hands of doctors, whom she had consulted a few days ago for a routine checkup and a minor eye infection-An evaluation of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs against defendants 1 and 2 - Dr. Venugopal and Dr. Suneethi, for an amount of Rs. 2,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of suit till the date of realization of the amount
Finding of the court:
The State has supported Dr. K.B. Venugopal throughout and since they have filed R.F.A. No. 622 of 2010 clearly with the intent to seek exoneration of the doctors - which is indubitable from the grounds raised - The State should suffer the entire vicarious liability; and consequently, that the impugned judgment to the extent to which it enables recovery from Dr. K.B. Venugopal be not permitted
Result: R.F.A. No. 333 of 2007 dismissed R.F.A. No. 622 of 2010 dismissed. R.F.A. No. 271 of 2007 Allowed in part C.O. (Indigent) No. 17 of 2020 is allowed
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. The life of Smt. Rema Devi, a sprightly 15 year old, full of life, good in studies - with the promise of a highly productive life - was horribly and irreversibly altered in August, 1987; when she frighteningly realised that she was unable to see and had lost her sight - not on account of ailment or natural causes - but due to iatrogenic errors at the hands of doctors, whom she had consulted a few days ago for a routine checkup and a minor eye infection.
2. The sudden loss of eye sight is a devastating and life changing event, unfathomably affecting a person's whole being, plummeting him/her to very strong and overwhelming grief and loss. In such cases patients often experience panic and confusion lasting several years - if not the life time - coupled with feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, despondency and fear, compounded by physiological conditions of insomnia, loss of appetite, aggression, tension, disorganisation, restlessness, inability to concentrate and even depression.
3. Stories of medical remedies and procedures sometimes causing more harm than good have been recorded from time immemorial.
4. An iatrogenic disorder occurs when the deleterious effects of the therapeutic or diagnostic regime causes a pathology contrary to the intended result on the patient. Semantically, the word ‘iatrogenesis’ is derived from Greek and means brought forth by the healer. However, when such errors are directly on account of mistakes committed by professional doctors, the situation becomes grave and serious.
5. The exordium as afore was necessitated because these appeals - at the instance of two doctors and the State of Kerala - call into question the judgment and decree of Sub Court, Thrissur, in O.S. No. 410/1997, which was filed by Ms. Remadevi aforementioned (who will hereinafter be referred to by her name or as the plaintiff), awarding an amount of Rs. 2,93,000/- to her as damages - to be paid to her in compensation for the total loss of her eyesight - which the said Court has concluded affirmatively to be on account of iatrogenic lapses and mistakes from the appellants - doctors, attached to the Government Medical College, Kozhikode, thus holding the State to be vicariously liable.
6. Pertinently, Smt. Rema Devi has also filed a cross objection in R.F.A. No. 271/2007, seeking enhancement of the amounts awarded, asserting the sums now adjudged by the Trial Court to be egregiously insufficient and grossly disproportionate to her life long agony.
7. A close look through the necessary facts and factual backdrop becomes obviously necessary for this Court to go forward and I, therefore, will indite them presently, as forgathered from the pleadings on record. For the sake of ease, I will refer to the parties by their name or as they are arrayed in the suit.
8. Smt. Rema Devi is the younger daughter of her parents and her father had died in 1986, when she was pursuing her tenth standard studies. She developed redness in the eyes on 02.08.1987, which led her and her mother to consult defendant No. 1 - Dr. K.B. Venugopal, who prescribed ‘Actrimforte’ and ‘Genta Drops’ to be administered in her eyes. However, she developed rashes all over body almost immediately and this was acute in her left eye. Therefore, on 04.08.1987, she met Dr. K.B. Venugopal again, who prescribed ‘Avil’ which is an anthihistamine, obviously being under the impression that what she was exhibiting was an allergic reaction. Since this did not give her any relief, she and her mother met Dr. Venugopal on 06.08.1987, when the Doctor prescribed a tablet by name ‘Wysolone’ 5 mg, asking her to take it for ten days.
9. However, on the very next day, namely 07.08.1987, Smt. Rema Devi's condition worsened, forcing her to meet Dr. Venugopal once again. Seeing her condition, Dr. Venugopal referred her to defendant No. 3 - Dr. P.U. Ashokan, who was a Dermatologist with the Medical College, Kozhikode, along with a letter of reference - which has been ma
