MANIVANNAN Vs. GOWRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.

(2.) Complainant had visited the 1st opposite party?s clinic on 18th and 19th January 2002 with the complaint of vomiting and stomach pain and after examination she was informed the pain was due to appendicitis and advised to undergo surgery immediately without any medical tests. The complainant was forced to admit the 2nd opposite party?s hospital. On 21.1.2002 scan was taken the opposite parties without any clinical or medical test performed surgery under the general Anasthesia and found that there is no appendicitis. They have collected Rs.16,000/- towards hospitalization expenses. Complainant was discharged on 26.1.2002 without furnishing discharge summary which was issued at a later stage. Complainant had continuous stomach pain even after surgery. Discharge summary disclosed that the opposite party opened the stomach after seeing the cause for the pain is nothing but a mass which needs no surgery which could have been treated conservatively. Without having proper diagnosis the opposite parties performed the surgery which is not at all warranted. The 2nd opposite party received Rs.4,560/-. Hence complainant suffered mental agony and therefore filed this complaint claiming hospital charges of Rs.16,000/- incidental expenses of Rs.6,000/-, dressing charges of Rs.1,500/- in all Rs.1,76,500/- of compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

(3.) Opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant and the 1st opposite party contended on examination the complainant was found sufferings due to tenderness over the right illiac fossa and suspected to be acute appendicitis and after the scan was taken and other routine tests were done, they revealed the possibility of acute appendicitis and after obtaining expert opinion from Dr.K.Muniappan on the same day emergency surgery was performed to save the life of the patient. At the time of surgery lot of toxic fluid was found in the abdomen and lot of T.B. nodes were also seen that they were taken out and sent for HPE test and found that she was suffering from T.B. There is no deficiency on the part of the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party also contended that the surgery was performed to the complainant by the 1st opposite party in the 2nd opposite party?s hospital with due care and after having all the necessary examination and ultra sound scan was done by Dr.Sundararaman an expert in the field and in order to save the life of the complainant the surgery was done on the date and no negligence on their part.