BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY Dated this the 3rd day of May 2023 Consumer Complaint No.02/2017

1.C.Parthiban S/o.Coummarasamy, 2.S. Jayanthi W/o.Parthiban Both residing at No.71, Perumal Koil Street, Pondicherry.

... Complainants Vs

1. Dr. Latha Chaturvedula Gynecology Department, Unit-III, JIPMER Hospital, Dhanvanthri Nagar, Gorimedu, Puducherry.

2. The Director, JIPMER Hospital, JIPMER Campus, Dhanvanthri Nagar, Gorimedu, Puducherry. .. Opposite Parties BEFORE:

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN PRESIDENT DR.S.SUNDARAVADIVELU, MEMBER TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY, MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANTS Tvl.M.Govinda Thirunavukarasu, D.Reena Iswariya, Advocates FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 and 2 Thiru.L.Annadoure, Advocate

O R D E R

(By Dr.S. SUNDARAVADVELU, Member)

This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the Opposite parties under section 14 and 17 of Consumer Protection Act, herein after called the CP Act, alleging negligence in treating their daughter Ms. P.Sri Raja Rajeswari (hereinafter referred as the patient) resulting in her untimely death. The complainants have sought Rs.99,99,999 towards damages from the Opposite parties on account of loss of life, shock and mental agony and cost of the complaint.

Gist of the complaint is as follows:

2. The complainants are the parents of the patient who was their only child. The child was brought up with abundant love and affection. After getting B.Tech degree in computer science, she got employment in M/s Amazon Development Centre India at Bangalore as Catalog assistant and drawing a salary of Rs.20,238 per month as total emoluments. While being at Bangalore, one day she suddenly developed severe collywobbles and she was taken to the local physician who advised for a medical check-up in a multi speciality hospital. Therefore the complainant brought his daughter to Pondicherry and took her for treatment to the 2nd Opposite party hospital on 02.12.2015.The patient was examined by the 1st Opposite party who was heading the Unit III of Gynaecology Department. She was advised some clinical tests like blood investigation X-Ray, Scan and advised to visit on 23.12.2015.On 23.12.2015, after examining the test reports ,the Opposite party 1 informed that the patient, Ms.Sri Raja Rajeswari has developed an ovarian cyst and it has to be removed by a simple surgery. The op1 was informed about the medical history of the patient including the surgery for appendicitis conducted when she was 9 years old. The date of surgery was fixed as

28.12.2015.

3. On 28.12.2015, the patient was admitted as inpatient and surgery was performed. The complainants were not informed as to the type of surgery proposed to be conducted before the surgery. Later they came to know that Laparoscopic procedure was conducted on their daughter. Next day i.e on 29.12.2015, the patient was discharged without prescribing any medicines. On reaching home, the patient complained of severe stomach pain and vomiting and loose motion. The complainants and their daughter visited the Opposite party no.1 on 30.12.2015 and the Opposite party 1opined that it is only a pain consequent to the surgery and she was imagining because of the surgery and nothing to worry. No tests were conducted on the patient inspite of the complaint of severe pain and loose motion.

4. They visited JIPMER again on 31.12.2015 however the Opposite party no.1 could not be met. Due to increasing pain, loose motion and abdominal distension ,they visited JIPMER again on 08.01.2016 and 09.01.2016. No tests were conducted and no care was taken. On 20.01.2016 +some unusual material was found oozing out from the surgical wound and the patient was immediately rushed to the Opposite party hospital. She was subjected to several tests and it was found that the material that oozed from the surgical wound was faecal matter and she had developed Peritonitis as a complication of the surgery done on 28.12.2015.The patient was admitted in the Opposite party h