ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The Facts:

The case of the complainant is that one deceased Renuka wife of 1^st complainant and father of 2^nd and 3^rd complainant, consulted the 2^nd opposite party doctor for her stomach pain and head ache and a scan was taken. From the scan report it is diagnosed that the complainant’s wife was suffering from ’cholecystits with multiple calculi’. As per the advice of 2^nd opposite party doctor the complainant admitted before the 1^st opposite party doctor hospital. After, initial tests the above diagnose was confirmed by the 1^st opposite party and suggested surgery without explaining the nature of surgery, the procedures and its complications, benefits or other alternative treatment etc., The opposite party did not consider the pre ailments of the patient. Her urea level was increased and she was anemic. Without considering those phenomena the surgery was done in a hasty manner on 07.04.2005. The patient was discharged on 15.04.2005 without ascertaining the conditions of the patient. After discharge the patient suffered breathlessness and brought to the hospital on 18.04.2005 and later she died in the hospital. In the hospital, no treatment was given to the patient on 18.04.2005. So alleging medical negligence in diagnose and treatment in not getting informed consent, not considering the consequences of Anemic nature, for which the complainant claiming Rs.11 lakhs under various heads. The opposite parties filed two separate written version and in the written version they disputed the correctness the complainant averment. They categorically submitted that they have taking due care expected from a prudent doctor and the surgery was performed after explaining all the particulars and getting consent from the patient and her husband. There is no negligence in treating the patient nor performing the surgery. The patient was in the hospital for morethan 9 days and discharged only on 15.04.2005. At the time of discharge her condition was stable but she was again brought to the hospital, complaining of breathlessness and within a short period she died. The cause of death is due to ’failure of left ventricle’ which is unrelated to the surgery done to her.

2. The District Commission received proof affidavit of both parties as well as examined one expert doctor as RW3. Ex.A1 to A12, Ex.B1 to B4 were marked. After perusing the entire materials the District Commission finally found the first opposite party Doctor committed deficiency in service and the 1^st opposite party doctor committed medical negligence and directed to pay Rs.6,69,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- as costs. The complaint is dismissed against the 2^nd opposite party.

3. Aggrieved over the same the 1^st opposite party preferred the appeal on the following grounds that the District Commission passed an erroneous order without ascertaining the facts involved in this case. The District Commission wrongly held that the discharge and treatment particulars were subsequently prepared to cover off their mistakes. Further the District Commission failed to note that there is no deficiency committed in performing the surgery and the patient was not died due to any complications from the surgery. Hence he prayed to allow the appeal.

4. In this case it is an admitted fact that one Renuka Devi was diagnosed as per scan report, that she suffered from cholecystits with multiple calculi and she was admitted in the 1^st opposite party hospital on 06.04.2005. The surgery was performed on 07.04.2005 and the patient was discharged on 15.04.2005. After discharge the above patient was brought to the hospital with complaint of breathlessness and inconvenience. While she was in the hospital, within short period she died. The 1^st opposite party submitted that the above patient died not because of post operative complications but due to her previous illness or Asthma.

Both sides filed Written arguments and oral arguments were also heard.

5. The learned counsel fo