LISIE HOSPITAL Vs. T.V. AJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 81 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Ernakulam. First defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-first respondent for damages oil the death of his mother. The plaint averments are as follows:

(2.) DECEASED V.S. Malathi Vasu is the mother of the plaintiff. She died on the night of 25th September, 1982. According to the plaintiff, Malathi Vasu developed discomfort near the region of her head and hence, she proceeded to the Lisie Hospital along with her husband, who is the third defendant, on 26.7.1982. The Hospital Authorities referred Malathi Vasu to the second defendant, Dr. Saraswathi Thampi, for consultation and examination of her teeth. She was given an outpatient attendance Card. The second defendant examined Malatahi Vasu in detail and she was told that there was a cyst on the lower part of her gum which needed surgical opening. The second defendant removed the cyst.

(3.) A written statement has been filed by the first defendant. In the written statement, it is stated as follows. It is admitted that the deceased was being treated by Dr. Saraswathi Thampi. Regarding the question of allergic to Penicillin, it was submitted that the deceased Malathi Vasu had not told the second defendant that she was allergic to Penicillin. It is the duty of all Doctors to ask the patients about the allergy to any medicine before medicine is prescribed. If any patient is found to be allergic to any medicine, the same will be noted hi the chart. Whenever any allergy is found, necessary advice will be given about the use of the medicine. It is also a wrong statement that Resticlin was prescribed to Malathi Vasu because she was allergic to Penicillin. Resticlin was thought to be the proper medicine to be administered and the second defendant prescribed the same to the deceased. It is further stated that Malathi Vasu died because of the Penicillin allergy is not correct. The defendant exercised due care and caution. The second defendant was never negligent in the exercise of her professional skill in prescribing Pentids. All standards required of medical profession have been complied with. Defendants 3 and 4 have filed separate written statement supporting the plaintiff. Additional written statement was filed by the first defendant regarding damages. With these pleadings, parties went to trial. The second defendant remained ex parte.