UMMER N Vs. HAMEED K M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals and cross-objection arise from the judgment and decree in a suit for compensation on account of alleged medical negligence, leading to the death of a patient. When Asia fell ill, she along with her husband, the first plaintiff, approached the first defendant doctor, who was the Medical Director and the 2nd defendant Orthopedic and General Surgeon of the Kasaragod Nursing Home for treatment. A surgery was advised and consequently she was admitted at the Kasaragod Nursing Home on 24-9-1989. A surgery was conducted on her by the 2nd defendant on 25-9-1989 and tissues were removed for biopsy. Biopsy was conducted by the 3rd defendant, M.D. Pathologist. It is alleged that the 3rd defendant had wrongly diagnosed her illness as Tuberculosis, and gave Ext. A-5 report to that effect. Based on the said diagnosis, defendants 1 and 2 continued the treatment and administered medicines for Tuberculosis. She was discharged on 30-9-1989. Her condition became deteriorated day by day and then the first plaintiff took her to Malikdinar Hospital, Kasaragod. They advised her to go to the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. On investigation at Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, and on pathological examination, the illness was diagnosed as Synovial Sarcoma (a form of cancer). By that time, the disease had affected her lungs, because of want of proper treatment in time. The deceased died on 19-9-1990, leaving her husband, the first plaintiff and their minor children, plaintiffs 2 to 4. Alleging medical negligence on the part of defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiffs have claimed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest as compensation.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement contending that the deceased had approached the 2nd defendant during the first week of September, 1989 for consultation. Blood test was conducted. X-ray was taken on 4-9-1989. As the results were not conclusive, they referred her to Doctor Sudhakara Shetty, Professor of Orthopedics at the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. From there also the opinion was that it could be Tuberculosis and she was advised to biopsy test, thereby she came back to the Kasaragod Nursing Home. She was admitted there and a surgery was conducted on 24-9-89 and tissues were taken for biopsy. Tissues were sent for biopsy to the Kasaragod Diagnosis Centre, and the biopsy test was conducted by the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant gave the report that the symptoms were suggestive of Tuberculosis. Treatments were continued and she was discharged on 30-9-1989. She came again on 3-10-1989 for removal of suture. The 2nd defendant prescribed medicines for five days for Tuberculosis. Again she came back on 8-10-1989. The 2nd defendant advised her to approach the first defendant as the symptoms were suggestive of Tuberculosis. The first defendant prescribed medicines for Tuberculosis. Again she went to the first defendant on 14-10-1989. The same course of medicines was advised for five more days. On 2-1-1990 she again came back to the 2nd defendant. He again prescribed medicines for Tuberculosis for five more days and hip X-ray was taken. Blood examination was also conducted.

(3.) The 3rd defendant filed a written statement contending that the deceased had approached the 2nd defendant with a complaint of pain at the trochanter region. The 2nd defendant took tissues from that part and they were brought to the 3rd defendant. He conducted histopathological examination of the tissues and gave the result that features are suggestive of Tuberculosis. After taking first course of treatment from defendants 1 and 2, she has not taken the follow up treatments. She was admitted at the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal by the end of March, 1990 and discharged on 9-4-1990. The 3rd defendant was not aware whether she was suffering from cancer. From 9-4-1990 she has not taken any treatment. The 3rd defendant was covered by an insurance policy issued by the supplemental 4th defendant towards claims arising from professional negligence.