NEELA SRIDHAR Vs. DURAI RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -complainant's case is that the complainant's wife Malar Vizhi did not have her period for three months and, therefore, suspecting that she had conceived and to have it confirmed, the complainant took her to the opposite party on 20.3.1995 where the opposite party is running a clinic under the name and style of "priyadarsini Clinic". The opposite party after examination informed that the complainant's wife had not conceived and if she is given an injection, the period will be regulized and saying so, she administered injection namely "life" and also prescribed certain medicines, for which, she charged and collected necessary fees. After the treatment and after taking the tablets prescribed by the opposite party, there was deterioration in the health of the complainant's wife, who was otherwise a healthy woman. She became reduced and emaciated and looked enervated. Therefore, on 12.4.1995 he again took her to the opposite party, who prescribed certain tablets and assured that if she had it regularly, she will be all right. A fee of Rs.25/ - was paid on that day. The complainant's wife began to have the tablets regularly but still there was no improvement and the sufferings of the complainant's wife became more acute. Therefore, on 15.4.1995, he took his wife to the opposite party who suggested, after examining her, that if D and C is carried out, she would be all right and would conceive. She suggested to the complainant to admit his wife in her clinic on that day itself and said that the operation would be carried out on 16.4.1995 in the afternoon. On 16.4.1995, accordingly she did the D and C procedure and after administering injection and prescribing medicines at 6 p. m. on that day, she discharged the complainant's wife from the hospital though the complainant's wife was still under sedation. The complainant then paid a sum of Rs.300/ - towards D and C charges and admission fees in the hospital. Even after the complainant's wife came home, she was not all right, she had vomitation and fever. Therefore, the complainant took his wife to the opposite party on 18.4.1995. The opposite party immediately admitted her in the clinic and prescribed certain course of treatment. But still the health of the complainant's wife began to deteriorate and on 19.4.1995, it became worse. The complainant's wife could not even pass urine and she fainted and became speechless. Therefore, the opposite party suggested the complainant to bring Dr. Kamalakkannan from Aranthanki. Dr. Kamalakkannan from Aranthanki came and examined the complainant's wife and immediately informed the complainant to take his wife to Madurai Menakshi Mission Hospital and told him that if he went there, her life will be saved. He also gave a letter of referral to the Hospital at Madurai. Immediately the complainant engaged a taxi and took his wife to Madurai and admitted her in the hospital on 19.4.1995. The doctors took various tests and said that the complainant's wife was suffering from diabetic and without testing the same, D and C had been done and, therefore, as a result of the same, the wound had become septic and there was excess bleeding and the urination problem has set in and thus the complainant's wife had been driven to a coma and hypotension and, therefore, she is in a critical stage and they would do everything to save her life. In spite of their best efforts, the complainant's wife died on 20.4.1995. On account of the carelessness, negligence, and indifference of the opposite party in carrying D and C without making preliminary tests, the complainant's wife had the septicemia and bleeding as a result of which hypotension and respiratory problem had set in resulting her death. The opposite party did not take any steps to save the life of the complainant's wife. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the death of his wife and loss of companionship, mental agony and hardship and a sum of Rs.54,000/ - towards medical expenses.

(2.) THE opposite party has submited a version contending thus: The complaint is not maintainable. On 20.3.1995 for the first time the complainant brought his wife to the opposite party to test whether she was pregnant since she had no menstruation for the period of 3 months. On this, it was found that she was not pregnant and certain prescriptions for the resumption of the period was given to the complainant's wife. She was asked to come back on the 5th day after the period restarted. On 27.3.1995, the complainant's wife came and informed that she had period but requested that a D and C may be done. The opposite party thought that some time lapse is necessary and, therefore, advised the complainant to bring his wife after 3 weeks. On 13.4.1995 the complainant with his wife came and requested the opposite party to do the D and C for which the opposite party agreed and fixed the date as 15.4.1995. On 15.4.1995 the complainant's wife came accompanied by her sister -in -law. She was advised to have her admitted in a Government Hospital where facilities for performing D and C are available as there was no facilities in the Primary Health Centre in Singavanam. But the patient was not anxious to have done it at Government Hospital and requested the opposite party to get her admitted in her Nursing Home and also requested the opposite party to perform the D and C. Thus out of humane consideration, the opposite party agreed to perform the D and C. Before the performance of the D and C, all necessary tests like blood -test and urine -test, etc. , were taken. The patient had her blood test done in Sri Babu Clinical Laboratory. In addition, blood test and urine test were done at Sabari Laboratory, attached to Priyadarsini Poly -clinic, according to which Hb was normal and Rh negative. There was not even trace of sugar or albumin. The health condition of the patient was found to be normal. Accordingly, D and C Endometrical biopsy was performed on the patient on 15.4.1995 and it was successful. This D and C (Endometrical biopsy) was done only to facilitate the fertility of the patient for creating a favourable condition for her future conceivement in uterus. D and C was done according to the procedure. The patient was kept under medical observation till 6 p. m. on that day. She was in normal condition and then she was willing to go to her house and the complainant was insisted to take her home. Hence, she was accordingly discharged. It is not true to say that she was sent back prematurely against her Will. The patient was advised to come back after two days. She came back only on 18.4.1995 afternoon accompanied by her sister -in -law and complained of pain in upper abdomen and right loin and vomiting. The opposite party after examination found that the cause of pain was not due to the after effect of D and C since no pain emanated from that region of the body. The opposite party suspected that the pain might be due to some other cause and was of the opinion that the cause of the pain might be due to renal problem, a cause which unconnected with the performance of D and C. However, the opposite party wanted to confirm her views by a second opinion from another doctor for which she requisitioned the service of Dr. Kamalakkannan. Dr. Kamalakkannan on examination of the patient, confirmed the opinion of the opposite party and advised the patient to have clinical investigations including x -ray, blood test, urine test, etc. The patient had all the tests done at Swathi Lab. , Arantangi at her choice and these tests revealed that her condition was normal in all respects and there was no symptom of diabetes. However, Dr. Kamalakkannan advised the patient to have consultation and check up at Menakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre at Madurai since the patient might have had some inherent metabolic disease and the patient was sent immediately. The patient was admitted in Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre at Madurai. It is learnt from inquiry that the patient had refractory circulatory failure and expired. It is also learnt that laparatomy was conducted which proved to be negative thereby meaning that the condition of the uterus was normal and that the performance of D and C has not caused any harm. The performance of D and C was not at all responsible for the deterioration of the patient. There was any negligence in treating the complainant's wife. The allegation of the complainant that the patient and the complainant were ignorant of the diabetes is false. This is a new allegation projected after the reply notice of the opposite party. It does not find place in his notice dated 5.6.1995. In his complaint sent to the Collector, Pudukottai District, the complainant alleged that death had occurred on account of the defective performances of D and C. Series of tests done prior to and after the performance of D and C did not reveal any symptom of abnormality. It is a possible inference that the patient had diabetes under control by medication which they had totally suppressed to the opposite party. Since the clinical test did not reveal any symptom of diabetes, it cannot be expected for any doctor to know that the patient is suffering from diabetes that too such young age. Therefore, if the treatment for diabetes was given in Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre at Madurai, the disease which was suppressed by medication would have surfaced due to the patient's negligence of discontinuing the drugs which perhaps used without knowledge of the opposite party or the diabetes might have suddenly surfaced as acute diabetic keto acidosis. Proper treatment was given by the opposite party. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied. The opposite party is not liable. There was no negligence or carelessness. There is no deficiency in service. Hence, the opposite party prays the complaint be dismissed.

(3.) THE lower Forum by its order dated 24.12.1998 directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 12% from 22.8.1995.