K. LATHA Vs. MADHARASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal Suit is directed against the Judgement and Decree dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram in O.S.No.149 of 2012. The defendant is the appellant in the First Appeal. The plaintiff is the respondent. The suit was instituted for claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant towards pain and sufferings, medical expenses, mental agony, disability, loss of health, loss of love and affection and other losses sustained by the plaintiff due to the act of negligence and carelessness in conducting and performing LSCS Surgery to the plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff conceived since 2008 and had been attending defendant for medical check up and medical management. The plaintiff sustained labour pain on 07.04.2009 and she came to the defendant's hospital for delivery. On the same day, the plaintiff undergone LSCS Surgery and she was discharged on 11.04.2009. Immediately after discharge, the plaintiff developed low grade fever and H/O loose stools for 6-7 days associated with abdominal pain and she was admitted again on 17.04.2009 in the defendant's hospital. The defendant kept the plaintiff under the guise of treatment till 22.04.2009 midnight without diagnosing the cause for the complaint and without giving necessary treatment. Thus, the health condition of the plaintiff became deteriorated and worsened and finding the critical health condition of the plaintiff, the defendant referred her to the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital for further management on 22.04.2009 at 12.00 PM. The plaintiff was admitted in Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital on 23.04.2009 and she has undergone surgery and in patient till 30.06.2009. The plaintiff was hale and healthy till she has undergone LSCS Surgery in the defendant's hospital. At the time of LSCS Surgery by the defendant on 07.04.2009, the plaintiff sustained Iatragenic Caecal Perferation and due to such injury, the plaintiff sustained all the above said complaints. The caecal perferation was caused due to the defendant's negligent and careless attitude and she discharged her duty without due care. The Plaintiff suffered pain and sufferings, loss of health condition, disability to feed her child and unable to discharge her personal duty and sustained mental agony. Apart from that, the plaintiff has sustained medical expenses for about Rs.10,00,000/-. The plaintiff has been taking treatment continuously and the medical expenses during the relevant point of time was about Rs.5,00,000/-. Setting out all these facts, the suit was instituted for recovery of compensation.

(3.) The appellant/defendant disputed the contents set out in the plaint by stating that, the suit itself is most vexatious, unjust and is liable to be dismissed. The defendant denied the allegations that the plaintiff sustained Iatragenic Caecal Perferation and had sustained medical expenses of about Rs.10,00,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff/respondent was admitted in her hospital on 07.04.2009 for delivery and LSCS Surgery was done on the same day and she was discharged on 11.04.2009. The defendant had stated that it is false that the plaintiff was again admitted in her hospital on 17.04.2009. The plaintiff came to the defendant's hospital on 14.04.2009 for removal of suture and the defendant removed the suture and no complaint was made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was again admitted on 19.04.2009 with complaint of dysentery. The plaintiff was subjected to medical check up by taking motion test on 20.04.2009 and blood test on 21.04.2009. As per the report given by the Thillai Diagnostic Centre, Chidambaram, pus cells and bacteria were found in the motion of the plaintiff and the blood test report revealed that the plaintiff was affected by typhoid positive. Thus, the plaintiff was given medical treatment by the defendant on 21.04.2009 itself for typhoid. The plaintiff had no fever, no vomiting, no abdominal distension and therefore, the ground of negligence raised by the plaintiff is earnest and unsustainable. The plaintiff was discharged from the defendant's hospital on 11.04.2009 and subsequently she developed some other complaints, which is no way connected with the surgery performed by the defendant in her hospital. Setting out all these facts, the defendant contested the suit.