NEELAM RAMASWAMY Vs. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in COP No. 65/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, is the appellant herein. This is a case complaining of medical negligence. The complainant's father aged about 50 years was a weaver and sole bread winner of the family. On or about 20.1.2001, he complained of acute pain in the thigh. He was referred to DKK Hospital at Kanchipuram. Cerrtain tests were advised. Thereafter, the complainant got his father checked by the 1st opposite party hospital in which he was admitted as an in -patient on 28.1.2001. The 2nd opposite party attached to the 1st opposite party hospital instructed the complainant's father to attend EMMES Ultra Sound Scan Centre, Kanchipuram to get abdominal scan. The report showed normal liver, normal gall bladder, normal pancreas, normal spleen and normal kidneys. The bladder was also normal and no enlarged prostate was noticed. The complainant could not understand why an abdominal scan was taken when the swelling was found on the left thigh of the leg. On 31.1.2001, an X -ray was taken of pelvis both hips and skull. No opinion was given on the five X -rays taken. Apparently, the X -rays taken did not reveal any adverse clinical comments. Another X -ray was taken of the chest on 6.2.2001 at the 1st opposite party hospital. No report having been furnished, this could also be taken to be normal. One more X -ray was taken of the left hip joint on 10.2.2001. As per the discharge summary given, it could be seen that between 30.1.2001 and 10.2.2001 the patient underwent an operation on 5.2.2001 for an alleged fracture in the first opposite party hospital supervised and assisted by the 2nd opposite party and operated upon by the 3rd opposite party. The discharge summary stated that a steel plate was fixed on that portion where the swelling was seen. After four days, sutures were removed. The patient was discharged on 13.2.2001. A bare look at the X -ray taken on 10.2.2001 would show that the plate and screws had not been done properly. It revealed that fixation of screws was hazy and uncertain. According to the report of CSI Kalyani Multi -Speciality Hospital, Chennai, a specimen of Left Femur Necrotic Bone and soft tissue was taken for biopsy for further test from the complainant's father's body. The date of collection according to the findings of CSI Kalyani Hospital was 6.2.2001. The biopsy report informed that Micro Multiple Sections showed proliferating fibroblasts with dilated vascular channels reactive osteoid rimmed by osteoblasts and focal area showing highly pleomorphic ligament Mesenchymal cells with tumour osteoid abnormal mitosis and large areas of haemorrhage. The impression was suggestive of osteogenic Sarcome secondary. On the reference made by the 1st opposite party hospital to get a CT scan from Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital on the thorax portion of the body of the patient the said hospital had given a report on the thorax portion of the patient. The impression was not adverse. On the instructions of the 1st opposite party hospital to attend the Cancer Institute at Government Arignar Anna Memorial Cancer Research Institute, Kanchipuram, the patient was admitted on 2.3.2001 and discharged on 14.3.2001 as per the hospital receipts. The O.P. slip suggested amputation of left thigh together with peripheral portion of the body of the patient. The patient was not for it because of complication created by the opposite parties already. There was thus mishandling of the entire situation on the patient by the opposite parties. The X -ray report dated 2.3.2001 showed the remarks as loose nail was found from the fixation of pathological fracture seen in the soft tissue plane. It would thus be seen that proper care had not been taken before the operation and also after the operation and this amounted to gross deficiency in service. It could clearly be seen that the bones could not withstand the surgery which resulted in the death of the patient on 5.4.2001 after undergoing severe mental and physical pain. The reasons for the following were not known, (1) why X -rays were taken was not known and why they were taken on the thorax and skull portion of the patient, (2) why the specimen of biopsy was taken on 6.2.2001 instead of 5.2.2001, the date of operation and that would have stalled the operation itself, (3) the reason why the operation was done even though it was not known that the patient had osteogenic sarcoma, which meant malignant tissue above the bone known as early as 20.8.2000, (4) the reason why the screws of the plate went shaky and came out as evidenced by the X -ray taken on 2.3.2001 at the Cancer Hospital, Karapettai, Kanchipuram. Thus there was deficiency in service. There was a notice issued on 28.3.2001 calling upon the 1st opposite party hospital to compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs. 3 lakh.

(2.) THE 1st opposite party, through an advocate, informed the complainant that the claim was highly excessive thereby accepting deficiency in service. The complaint came to be filed claiming a total sum of Rs. 3,33,086 under various heads.

(3.) THE 1st opposite party filed a version denying the various allegations. The 1st opposite party was a service oriented organization doing service to the needy people for over 93 years. The case sheet of the hospital and discharge summary furnished to the complainant's father would reveal the entire true facts. All clinical investigations necessary for the correct diagnosis were done by the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties. The surgery was done with great care and caution. There was no deficiency in service.