V CHALAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Nalgonda. He had a son by name Hari Krishna. On 24.02.1999, while Hari Krishna was travelling from Devarakonda to Nalgonda, on a scooter, an accident occurred and he suffered injuries. He was admitted to the District Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda, for treatment immediately and a Medical Legal Case was registered. It is stated that the patient recovered from all the injuries suffered by him in the accident and at the final stage, a deformity in the nose was noticed. On 04.03.1999, the ENT specialist of the Hospital opined that some surgical operation is necessary for that purpose. Accordingly, a surgery was performed on 05.03.1999 for correction of the deformity in the nose. When certain complications were noticed, during the course of operation, in the general health condition of the patient, corrective measures were taken and thereafter, the patient was shifted to Osmania General Hospital. It is stated that the case was referred to Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) and ultimately on 07.03.1999, the patient died, while under treatment.

(2.) In the post mortem conducted on the dead body, the reason for the death was indicated as "hypoxic encepholopathy". The petitioner contends that the death of his son occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the team of doctors, who conducted the operation on 05.03.1999, in ensuring proper supply of oxygen and that by the time, the patient was shifted to Hyderabad, it was too late. The petitioner claims a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 as compensation from the State.

(3.) The 6th respondent, Superintendent of the Hospital filed a counter affidavit. He narrated the nature of treatment accorded and type of operation conducted upon the son of the petitioner. The circumstances, under which the patient had to be shifted to Hyderabad, are also mentioned. He flatly denied any negligence in the matter of performance of duties by the team of Doctors, who conducted the operation. He however contends that the treatment itself was started from 24.02.1999 and at no point of time, any laxity was exhibited. He pleads that the patient died on account of certain irrecoverable complications, and the State cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.