NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. RAJI VIJAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals are preferred from the order dated 2.6.2003 passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. 91/2000. The appellant in the Appeal No. 679/03 is the 1st opposite party and the appellant in Appeal No. 606/03 is the 4th opposite party in O.P.91/2000. The appellants are the opposite parties in the said O.P. filed, against them. The complainant claiming compensation on the ground of the deficiency in service from the part of the appellants/opposite parties in the order passed by the Forum below which directed to pay opposite parties (appellants respectively) Rs. 3,50,000 with future interest at 14.5%, and also to pay Rs. 2000 as cost. The Forum below fixed the liability of the payment against this appellants and the Forum below exonerated 2nd and 3rd opposite parties from the liability in the OP. Appellants filed this appeal against the order of the Forum below. In brief the case is that the complainant Raji Vijayan was a patient of 1st respondent who is working in the hospital of the 2nd respondent/2nd opposite party. The complainant is a married woman and she was admitted in the 2nd opposite party's hospital where the 1st opposite party is working as the specialist surgeon in Gastroentrology and general surgery. She was suffering from abdominal pain and vomiting. She was admitted in the hospital and after examination, the problem was detected in the gallbladder, and accordingly an operation was conducted by the 1st opposite party. But still the pain was persisting and during the course of convalescence it was worsening, and the complainant came to the 1st opposite party. On several times for consultation, and each time treatment was prescribed but she still continued to have the trouble and severe pain. She underwent scanning at Shanker's Hospital, Kollam, and the scan report showed the suspicion of a foreign body inside the stomach. This scan report was shown to the 1st opposite party. Then instead of realising the fact and condition of the patient, he became very angry and he abused the complainant for having gone for such an unnecessary examination without his direction. But the pain was increasing and the 1st opposite party was not giving all attention to the presence of the foreign body and he was continuing the treatment otherwise. Later on in a very severe pathetic condition the complainant was discharged from SUT Hospital (2nd opposite party), perhaps on the fear that she is reaching a dangerous condition. Immediately her relatives took her to EVM Hospital, Kochi (3rd opposite party) where she immediately underwent a surgery and the foreign body from her abdomen was removed. The after effects on the complainants were severe but even now she is suffering from consequent troubles, but due to such a surgery at Kochi, her life was saved. She was placed in extreme danger by the 1st opposite party. The complainant had to spent lacs of rupees as treatment expenses and she had to undergo severe pain and sufferings for a life time, and this is only due to the carelessness and negligence of the 1st opposite party. So the complainant prays that she may he given substantial compensation from the opposite parties. It is reported that 1st and 2nd opposite parties have taken insurance cover against any treatment mishaps from the 4th opposite party and any liability can be made policy amount.

(2.) THE 1st opposite party appeared and contended that he is having outstanding qualifications and experience; in the medical profession and he who illustrated all of his professional curriculum -vitae in the version. He admitted that the complainant was admitted and treated for abdominal pain in the 2nd opposite party's hospital. The disease was diagnosed by him as inflammation of gall bladder and surgery was attempted through key -hole, but it was not successful and immediately they conducted an open surgery, and the diseased part was removed. Hereafter the complainant had come on some occasions for check up and she complained pain, and pain killers were administered. She was given sufficient treatment each and every occasion. The lst opposite party was never shown any scan report taken from Sankar's Hospital, Kollam. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE 2nd opposite party/SUT Hospital is also filing a separate version adopting the contentions of the 1st opposite party. The additional opposite party/New India Assurance Company contended as follows: There was no negligence on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and that there is no medical negligence, insurance cover is not available and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.