ORDER

Philips Thomas & Ors.     :        Mr. Saju Jakob, Advocate with

Mr. Arush Gangal, Advocate

Mr. Tessy Varghese, Advocate

Deen Hospital & Ors.       :        Mr. Raghenth Basant, Advocate

with Mr. Ajay Krishna, Advocate

Pronounced on: 06^th June 2023 

ORDER

1.       This Order shall decide both the First Appeals arising from the impugned Order dated 04.02.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 2/2008, wherein the State Commission allowed the Complaint and held the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 negligent and awarded the total compensation sum of Rs.7,00,000/- out of which Rs.3,00,000/- should be deposited in the name of minor children of Complainant No. 1 along with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2.       For the convenience, the parties are referred to be as in the Complaint before the State Commission.  Deen Hospital, Punalur (OP-1), Dr. R.V. Ashokan, the proprietor (OP-2), Dr. A. Balachandran (OP-3), Dr. Vinu Balakrishnan (OP-4) and Dr. Laila Ashokan (OP-5).  OP-3 to 5 were working at OP-1.

3.       The issue involves an alleged case of medical negligence concerning Mini Philip (since deceased) a 37 years old patient who underwent laparoscopic sterilization at Deen Hospital, Punalur (OP-1) on 25.09.2006.  The surgery was expected to be completed within half an hour, but it took longer than scheduled due to respiratory problems. The patient was later transferred to Poyanil Hospital and then to Ananthapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Unfortunately, she was pronounced dead at around 5-5:30 pm the following day.

4.       Heard the leaned Counsel on both the sides.  The learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the cause of death showed that General Anaesthesia and Spinal Anaesthesia were administered on the patient simultaneously. The injection marked on the back of trunk shown in the post mortem was characteristic feature of anesthesia.  It was due to negligence of OP-3 & 4 who did laparoscopic sterilization in causal manner.  The operation was done casually under supervision of OP-5.   The patient was in sound health.  He submitted that the brain hypoxia and ARDS because of injuries to the spinal canal where by dura was punctured.  The OP-3 administered anesthesia. The OP-3 was not qualified to administer anesthesia as he was not anesthetist.  The OP-1 hospital had no accreditation from the Health Department to conduct laparoscopic sterilization on females. Therefore, OP-1 was not competent to conduct laparoscopic surgery. The surgery was not warranted when the patient was ailing from respiratory distress.  

5.       The OPs filed their joint written version. The patient was managed with care and shifted to higher centre without delay.  Everything necessary was done with best of interest of the patient.  The OP-5 the gynaecologist was working in OP-2.  She explained the patient and her husband about the modality of sterilization.  The OP-5 further explained in details about the pros and cons of tubal sterilization and chances of failure.  The choice and risks of anesthesia were informed.  The patient was taken for operation at 5.30 p.m. under general anesthesia.  It was administered with thiopentone and thereafter OP-4 performed laparoscopic surgery.  At the end of surgery patient was stable, oxygen saturation was satisfactory on spontaneous respiration.  Thereafter, extubation was done.  After few minutes patient developed breathlessness and again she was intubated immediately and positive pressure ventilating was done with 100% oxygen. The patient showed signs of pulmonary edema, immediately Lasix inj was administered.  The OP-4 & 5 was assisting for OP-3 for resuscitation.  The other anaesthetist was called and Bronchodilators and corticosteroids were given in repeated intervals.  The endotracheal suction was done throughout, but the oxygen levels remained to 75% to 80%.  The pulmonary edema persisted and therefore, t