Medical practitioners must adhere to established protocols in trauma care; deviations resulting in harm constitute negligence.

ORDER

DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1. The instant Appeal is preferred by the Appellants/Complainants (Abhishek & Ors.) under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 against the impugned Order dated 30.09.2008, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”), wherein the Complaint was dismissed.

2. The Complainants are minor sons of the deceased - Dr. Sudha. They have filed the Complaint through their uncle Dr. Satish (Complainant No.3). The Opposite Parties consist of K.V.M. Hospital, Cherthala and the treating doctors. For the convenience, the Parties are being referred to their position as before the State Commission.

3. Brief facts are that on 30.12.1999, in a major road accident, three persons suffered injuries and they were brought to K.V.M Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 1”). One Dr. Sudha (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the “patient”) was examined by the doctors. Her face and neck was swollen, she suffered maxillo facial injuries. The C.T. scan of head revealed no significant intra-cranial injury. Patient’s X-ray of the neck and chest were done, but the fracture of the 6^th cervical vertebra was not seen. However, it was informed that her condition was not serious. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 7, Dr. Ravindran Narain performed the wiring procedure with the help of the Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 for the fractured maxilla. During the procedure, there was a sudden spurt of bleeding, which caused airway obstruction and the patient died due to oxygen insufficiency. It was further alleged that the doctors failed to secure patient’s airway; prior to the wiring and they rather performed tracheostomy or Intubation. The Postmortem (PM) report of the deceased clearly showed that the patient's air passage was full of blood and her finger nails were blue which was suggestive of her death due to hypoxia (oxygen insufficiency). Alleging medical negligence by improper clinical evaluation and wrong treatment from the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with 12% interest under different heads.

4. The Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 filed a joint reply and denied the allegations leveled against them. OP-1 & 2 filed separate written versions. The contention of the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 was that the patient had major facio-maxillary fractures with bleeding from mouth and nostrils at the time of admission. The Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 submitted that the First Aid procedure of wiring of the Maxilla was performed by the Opposite Party No. 7 with the assistance of the Opposite Parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The Opposite Party No. 3 was the plastic surgeon/general surgeon, the Opposite Party No. 4 was the Anesthetist and the Opposite Party No. 5 was also an Anesthetist of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. They had conducted all emergency investigations including blood investigations, X-ray of the skull including upper cervical spine and C.T. scan of the head with scanogram of the upper cervical spine. The Opposite Party No. 7, Dr. Ravindran Nair was called from Medical College, Alleppey to attend the patient; as the facio-maxillary surgeon, who was attached to the hospital was out of station and the relatives of the patient were not willing to shift the patient to some other hospital. The Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 also submitted that the patient was fully conscious and well oriented and answered all the questions regarding previous history. On examination, the airway was patent and the patient did not experience any difficu