BABY ZACHARIAH Vs. B K MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that for a simple gall bladder stone surgery of Mrs. Susamma Baby, aged 39 years, wife of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2-doctor recommended admission in opposite party No. 1-Hospital with whom he had some arrangement. Surgery was performed by opposite party No. 2 on 11.1.1998. On the following day, the opposite party No. 2 left for Guwahati. After surgery, Mrs. Susamma Baby developed jaundice. Doctors and nurses attached to opposite party No. 1-Hospital refused to treat her for jaundice saying that she was not their patient. Complainant, therefore, brought her back to the house on 18.1.1998. She was taken to Military Unit Hospital at 31, Assam Rifles on 23.1.1998 wher e it was detected that opposite party No. 2 had stitched the common bile duct with cystic duct which was a blunder. Ultrasound revealed dilated common bile duct (CBD) with an abrupt termination in its mid-portion. Bilirubin of complainant's wife went up to 15.9 Mg % due to the closure of bile duct. It was further alleged that an exploratory laparatomy corrective surgery was undertaken at Guwahati Medical College. Hepatico Duodenostomy was done. It was found that the common bile duct and the common hepatic duct were totally necrosed (damaged and rotten). Wife of the complainant subsequently developed stricture at the site of anastaniosis for which dilation was attempted and a stent was put which later on fell off and another transanastamotic stent was placed. During all these surgeries health of the complainant's wife further deteriorated. She started having recurrent cholangities (infection of the common bile duct) and progressive strictures at the site of anastamosis. These surgeries were done in different hospitals. Ultimately, the complainant had to take his wife for treatment to Trivandrum Medical College Hospital. All the attempts to save her failed and she died on 14.2.1999 there. It was asserted that the death was caused due to the negligence on the part of opposite party No. 2. It was further alleged that the complainant has two daughters and a son. Both the daughters are yet to be married. Son is aged about 15 years. Complainant's wife was a pathologist and was also taking care of the manufacturing of soft drink under the name of Bibis bliss/7 Sip. Complainant's business is closed as he has been unable to look after it due to illness of his wife. Direction is sought to be made to the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay to the complainant a total amount of Rs. 55.5 lakh as detailed in para No. 5 of the complaint.

(2.) Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contested the complaint by filing a joint written version. It was alleged that Ultrasonography of Mrs. Susamma Baby was conducted in 1995 at 155 Base Hospital (Army), Tezpur, Assam which revealed multi fillings in the gall bladder. In December, 1997, opposite party No. 2 was consulted and he advised operation for removal of gall stones. On 11.1.1998, she was taken to the operation theatre in opposite party No. 1- Hospital. Her abdomen was opened in layers by modified right subcostal incision. Gall Bladder was found chronically inflamed with multiple adhesions with calculi. Release of adhesions was done. Duct first method cholecystectomy was performed. Abdomen was, therefore, closed in layers. Post-operative period was uneventful. She was discharged fro m opposite party No. 1-Hospital on 18.1.1998 in normal condition. It was alleged that Mrs. Susamma Baby was regularly attended till the date of discharge by opposite party No. 2. Resident doctors working in opposite party No. 1 - Hospital took care of her. It was denied that she developed jaundice on the following day of the operation or that the doctors in opposite party No. -Hospital refused to treat her on the ground that she was the patient of opposite party No. 2 as alleged. It was stated that on 24.1.1998, complainant's wife was brought to the clinic of opposite party No. 2 and then opposite party No. 2 diagnosed that she was suffering fro m mild jaundice and he prescribed certain medicines. On the advice of opposite party No. 2, the wife of the complainant was admitted in opposite party No. 1-Hospital on 29.1.1998. Ultrasonography was done at Assam X-Ray Clinic and Laboratory which showed dilation of Common Bile Duct (CBD) due to blockage of biliary sludge. Lab report did not mention that cystic duct (CSD) was stitched with the CBD as alleged by the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 realized that Endoscopic Retrograde Cholengio Panceratography (ERCP) was required for removal of Biliary sludge and since this facility was not available in opposite party No. 1-Hospital, the complainant was advised to take blocking the common bile duct by stitching it up resulting in internal rot as alleged. It was further denied that the wife of complainant developed jaundice on 12.1.1998 and she never visited her after operation or that she was a pathologist as alleged. Liability to pay the amount claimed was denied.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Ravindra Bana, Amicus Curiae for the complainant and Mr. Ananta Goswami, Adv. for the opposite party.