SOBHANA NATARAJAN Vs. COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITALS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint for direction to the opposite parties for payment of compensation for deficiency of service and negligence.

(2.) The complainant's case in brief is as follows : complainant had severe backache, therefore, on 3.1.1995 she consulted the second opposite party, he advised her to get herself admitted in the Jubilee Memorial Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and accordingly she got admitted in the said hospital on 4.1.1995. MRI scan, Ext. P1 was taken on 5.1.1995 at Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Ext. P2 is the photocopy of the report of the MRI scan. She was discharged on 7.1.1995 and was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on the same day. She was treated by the second opposite party. In the context of Exts. P1 and P2, second opposite party diagnosed her complaint as IVDP L4 - L5 (I ). She was under treatment in the first opposite party hospital from 7.1.1995 and was discharged on 19.1.1995. Ext. P3 is the photocopy of the discharge summary; for the treatment the first opposite party collected charges including professional fees. Since even after the treatment she did not get the desired relief and pain persisted she once again consulted the second opposite party who advised Laminactomy the Disecotomy at L4 - L5 level is necessary to relieve her back pain. Complainant was, therefore, again admitted in the first opposite party hospital on 23.2.1995. On 25.2.1995 she was subjected operation and the second opposite party told her that the laminactomy and Disecotomy was done at L4 - L5 and that the operation was an absolute success. At that time her husband was given to believe the operation was done by the second opposite party. She was under post-operative treatment in the hospital till 4.3.1995 on which date she was discharged. Ext. P4 is the photo copy of the discharge summary. After discharge, while she was at her residence, on 4.3.1995 itself she found the whole bed sheet soaked with fluid leaked out through the surgical wound. Immediately she was again taken to the first opposite party hospital. She was seen in the casuality by the 3rd opposite party. On examination a gaping wound was discovered and the wound was then resutured and she was allowed to go home. The said procedure is noted in Exbt. P3 discharge summary. This itself constituted deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as the opposite parties caused dural tear and leakage of ceribro spinal fluid and wound infection. On 7.3.1995 on finding that the dressing of the wound and the stitches completely soaked with the leakage of spinal fluid, she had to be taken to the first opposite party hospital. She was examined in the casuality where the dressing was changed and consoled her stating that there is no cause for any anxiety. For attending the same fee was collected, Exbt. P5 is the receipt issued by the first opposite party. The operation and the post- operative care did not give her relief. On 16.3.1995 she was again taken to the first opposite party hospital and the third opposite party removed the sutures and advised her to go home. The headache she had did not respond to the medicines prescribed. Though the second opposite party assured the complainant that it would be possible for her to move about and would be able to resume her ordinary house home hold activities, she was unable to attend it as the back pain persisted She again consulted the second opposite party, but he tried to convince her stating that the nerve centre must have been disturbed and that it would disappear in due course of time. But there was no improvement, the pain aggravated and, therefore, she again consulted the second opposite party who prescribed pain killing drugs but the same could not in any way reduce her pain. She started to loose the control of movements of her legs and toes. The first opposite party has collected fee for the surgery and other expenses including the professional fees of the Surgeon and Anaesthetist. She was taken to Madras where she consulted P. W.3 Professor of Orthopaedics in Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur, the consultation was on 7.11.1995. Exbt. P7 X-ray and Exbt. P6 MRI scan were also taken at Vijaya Hospital. Exbt. P21 is the report of the X-ray on 8.11.1995 and Exbt. P22 is the copy of MRI report from Vijaya Hospital. The X-ray and the MRI were taken by P. W.2. The investigation revealed that as a matter of fact Laminectomy and disecotomy said to have been done at site L4 - L5 on 25.2.1995 at the first opposite party hospital at Thiruvananthapuram by the third opposite party with the assistance of second opposite party was actually conducted wrongly at site L5 S1 instead of L4 - L5 level as required. This itself would demonstrate, the opposite parties failed to exercise the care required of them-both at the operation as well as in the post-operative period the same would constitute negligence under Law. The same resulted in great pain and discomfort and financial loss to the complainant. P. W.3 conducted the surgery at L4 - L5 with spinal fusion and steffee instrumentation on 14.12.1995. Then the L5 S1 facets were found partly damaged and surrounded by scar tissues, intence adhesion of dura to soft tissues at L5-S1 level showing a previous dural tear were also noticed. Laminectomy was conducted at L5 S1 level by the opposite parties. She was under treatment at the said hospital and was discharged on 22.12.1995. Exbt. P15 is the copy of the discharge summary. Complainant issued notice to the first and second opposite parties claiming compensation for the aforesaid negligence. Exbt. P16 is the copy of the said notice. The opposite parties sent a reply but the reply did not reveal as a matter of fact it was the third opposite party assisted by the second opposite party that the surgery was conducted. The second opposite party did not send a reply but informed the complainant's husband that the surgery was done by the 3rd opposite party. Consequently the complainant demanded the first opposite party to furnish her with the hospital records, by Ext. B29 reply dated 24.5.1996, the first opposite party informed the complainant that it was not customary to furnish the hospital records. There- upon the complainant issued Exbt. P17 notice dated 11.6.1996 to all the three opposite parties. In the meanwhile the complainant received Exbt. P18 reply dated 17.6.1996 which was sent at the instruction of the second opposite party. Since the opposite parties did not comply with the demand the complaint is instituted wherein she claims a total compensation of Rs.7 lakhs.

(3.) Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed a version adopting the contentions they have raised in their respective affidavits and they wanted to treat the contentions raised in the affidavit of the second opposite party as his version.