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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 4240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
RAKHI KOTHARI - Appellant
Versus
R. SOUNDAAPANDIAN AND ANOTHER - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 3279 of 2012 and M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on : 30-01-2013

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. In an accident which occurred on 14.3.2004 a 30-year-old lady sustained closed fracture both bones right leg mid shaft transverse and undisplaced fracture left pubic bone. On 14.3.2004, she was admitted in Apollo Hospitals, Chennai. On 15.3.2004, I.M. nailing right tibia was done to fuse the fractured right tibia bone. She was discharged on 20.3.2004. At the time of accident, she was pregnant and the foetus was nine weeks old. As per discharge summary, Exh. P10, the course in the hospital and discussion, with the operation notes, read as hereunder:

Course in the Hospital & Discussion:

Rakhi Kothari, 26 years old normotensive and cuglyeemic pregnant lady, alleged to have met with a road accident was haemodynamically stable. She sustained fracture bone of right leg and undisplaced fracture of pubic bone.

With preliminary investigations done and after written consent and explaining the risk involved to the pregnancy during and after the procedure, patient was taken up for surgery on 15.3.2004.

Operation Notes:

Under spinal anesthesia and tourniquet control, right leg cleaned and draped. Through midline tendon splitting approach opening made in the upper tibia. Guide wire passed and fracture reduced. Then, using 360 x 11 mm nail fracture right tibia secured by closed I.M. nailing method. Proximal and distal locking done. Wounds closed with chain in section.

She was seen by Dr. Swarnakumari (Consultant Obstetrician & Gynecologist) and discussed the risk of radiation exposure and post-surgery as the pregnancy was in the vulnerable period of teratogenecity.

Patient was also seen by Dr. Sivagnanasundaram (Consultant Endocrinologist) for hypothyroidism and his advice followed.

The patient was mobilised with physiotherapy. Hospital stay was otherwise uneventful. At the time of discharge, patient's vitals were stable. Wounds are clean.

As per the discharge summary, Exh. P11, under endotracheal general anaesthesia and continuous cardiac monitoring, the appellant patient put in lithotomy position. Cleaned and draped. Two tablets of cytotec were kept inside the vagina on 29.3.2004 at 11 a.m. The patient expelled few products in the morning. Again, the appellant-claimant was admitted on 30.3.2004 in the same hospital and that on the same day, a surgery was performed. Medical termination of pregnancy was completed with suction curettage. Check curettage done and uterine cavity was empty. Bleeding P/V WNL. She was advised to review with Dr. Swarnakumari, Consultant Gynecologist, after one week.

2. In the above medical background, the appellant-claimant has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 2896 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 under various heads. In her claim petition, she also submitted that the foetus of a baby was aborted. Prior to the accident, she claimed that she was engaged in taking tuition to children and earned Rs. 5,000 per month. To substantiate the injuries, she has marked discharge summaries dated 10.3.2004 and 30.3.2004 respectively, Exhs. P10 and P11, issued by Apollo Hospitals; medical bills, Exh. P12, X-rays, Exhs. P18 and P20; and disability certificate, Exh. P19. Doctor, PW 5, who clinically examined the injured-appellant, with reference to the medical records, assessed the disability at 45 per cent and issued disability certificate, Exh. P19.

3. In the oral testimony, the appellant-injured has deposed about the physical infirmities suffered by her, due to the gravity of the injuries. In her proof affidavit, she has stated that she was admitted in Apollo Hospitals on 30.3.2004 and on medical advice, abortion was done. She has also stated that earlier, she had spent lot of money for treatment to deliver a second boy and that the same went in vain.

4. Having regard to the pleadings and evidence that the appellant was engaged in taking tuition, the Claims Tribunal has fixed her monthly income at Rs. 3,000.










































































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top