B SHASHIKALA Vs. KATTAM RAMAKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by opposite party Gynaecologist against the order of the Dist. Forum directing her to pay Rs. 3 lakh towards compensation on the ground of medical negligence.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the complaint are that late K. Laxmi is the wife of the complainant. She was suffering from anaemia. She consulted the appellant a Gynaecologist at Karutla. She advised her to undergo Hysterectomy. On the consent given by the patient she conducted the surgery on 6.1.2005. At about 12 noon she started bleeding. After 5 hours, second operation was conducted. When the patient developed abdominal distension the appellant advised the complainant to shift his wife to a higher centre for further care and treatment and discharged her on 14.1.2005. The patient was taken to Krishna institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Hyderabad at about 3.49 p.m. on 14.1.2005. Despite treatment she died on 15.1.2005 at 8.10 a.m. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party the complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh.

(3.) THE appellant resisted the claim alleging that she exercised due skill in operating and treating the patient. The patient unfortunately developed hypotension five hours after the surgery. She informed the complainant explaining the medical condition and requiring for a second surgery. After obtaining consent she conducted the second surgery. There was no bleeding except for some generalized ooze. The patient was stable and became normal. She maintained normal B.P. and pulse for five days. However, on 10.1.2005 at about 8.00 p.m. she developed distension of abdomen. It was managed by giving I.V. fluids. The patient was stable till 13.1.2005. She passed stools 3 to 4 times in a day. Again on 13.1.2005 at 5.00 p.m. distension was noticed in erect position. By taking experts opinion I.V. fluids were given and gastric tube was placed. On 14.1.2005 at about 2.00 a.m. she fainted. After consulting a Physician, she advised the patient to be shifted to a higher centre for further treatment, and discharged her at about 4.00 a.m. Later she learnt that she died in KIMS, Secunderabad. As she knew the husband of the complainant he being a Private Medical Practitioner and LIC agent she treated free of cost to her. Therefore the case does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.