V. KRISHANA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Appeals are preferred against the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCDRC') rendering a finding of medical negligence against the State of Tamil Nadu, its Government Hospital and two Government Doctors and awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - to V. Krishnakumar. Civil Appeal No. 8065 of 2009 is preferred by V. Krishnakumar for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Civil Appeal No. 5402 of 2010 is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu and another against the judgment of the NCDRC. As facts of both the appeals are same, we are disposing the appeals by this common judgment.

(2.) On 30.8.1996, the appellant V. Krishankumar's wife Laxmi was admitted in Government Hospital for Women and Children, Egmore, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "Hospital"). Against the normal gestation period of 38 to 40 weeks, she delivered a premature female baby in the 29th week of pregnancy. The baby weighed only 1250 grams at birth. The infant was placed in an incubator in intensive care unit for about 25 days. The mother and the baby were discharged on 23.9.1996. A fact which is relevant to the issue is, that the baby was administered 90 -100% oxygen at the time of birth and underwent blood exchange transfusion a week after birth. The baby had apneic spells during the first 10 days of her life. She was under the care of Respondent No. 3 - Dr. S.Gopaul, Neo -paediatrician and Chief of Neo Natology Unit of the Hospital and Respondent No. 4 - Dr. Duraiswamy of the Neo Natology Unit of the Hospital. The Respondent No. 2 is the Director of the Hospital, which is established and run by the Respondent No. 1 - State of Tamil Nadu under the Department of Health.

(3.) The baby and the mother visited the hospital on 30.10.1996 at the chronological age of 9 weeks. Follow up treatment was administered at the home of the appellant by Respondent No. 4, the Government Doctor, Dr. Duraiswamy during home visits. The baby was under his care from 4 weeks to 13 weeks of chronological age. Apparently, the only advice given by Respondent No. 4 was to keep the baby isolated and confined to the four walls of the sterile room so that she could be protected from infection. What was completely overlooked was a well known medical phenomenon that a premature baby who has been administered supplemental oxygen and has been given blood transfusion is prone to a higher risk of a disease known as the Retinopathy of Prematurity (hereinafter referred to as 'ROP'), which, in the usual course of advancement makes a child blind. The Respondent No. 3, who was also a Government Doctor, checked up the baby at his private clinic at Purassaiwakkam, Chennai when the baby was 14 -15 weeks of chronological age also did not suggest a check up for ROP.