N.THANKAPPAN Vs. ADMINISTRATOR, HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant in O.P. 216/99 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint stands dismissed.

(2.) It is the case of the complainant that while serving in the Army on 15.8.96 he felt belly pain and started vomiting. The military doctor on examination and on the basis of U.S.G. Scan findings found that he is having stones in the Gall bladder and advised a minor surgery. He reached home and got admitted at the opposite party hospital on 30.9.96. He was told by the second opposite party doctor that he will have to undergo an immediate laparoscopic operation and that it is a minor procedure and can go home after 3 days. He under went the surgery done by the second opposite party assisted by the 3rd opposite party doctors. It is alleged that the surgery was conducted without even conducting a scanning test prior to the surgery. He under went the surgery on 1.10,96. On 4.10.96 he felt much inconvenience and pain. On the next day he was found suffering from jaundice. His stomach got enlarged. He was having a yellow coloured discharge through the key hole of the belly. He was directed to undergo scanning test. The condition did not improve thereafter. The belly got enlarged with bile collection and he was also having back ache. The fluid was being drained out through a tube from 4.10.96 to 17.10.96. The opposite parties carried out an open abdomen surgery on 17-10-96 and still there was no improvement. The discharge of the fluid continued. On 28.10.96 he was referred to PVS Hospital, Kochi. His weight had considerably reduced from 57Kg to 42 kg. At the time of discharge he was in a sinking stage. The H.B. rate was 14.4gms on 30.9.96 and on 17.6.96 the H.B. rate is noted as 8.7gms. On 30.10.96 he was admitted in PVS Hospital, Kochi. He underwent a major surgery on 7.11.96. On ERCP done on 2.11.96, it was found that there was a cut off the region of the common hepatic duct and leakage through the cystic duct stump. On 18.11.96, he was discharged from PVS Hospital. He was to appear for review on every 3 months and he was advised to take medicines regularly. It is alleged that the injury on the common hepatic duct was caused due to the failure on the part of the opposite parties and also on account of not conducting a scanning test before the surgery. There after he took voluntary retirement due to his permanent disability. At present he has to take rest and is unable to do any job. He has lost 6 years of service. He is also giving gastric disorders and he is under regular treatment. The injury during the laparoscopic surgery was due to the negligence of the opposite parties. He has claimed a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation.

(3.) The opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed separate versions.