S GURUNATHAN Vs. VIJAYA HEALTH CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint was filed by the complainant Dr. S. Gurunathan alleging medical negligence on the part of respondent hospital and praying for an award of Rs. 1,29,92,900/- on account of loss of future earnings, medical expenses pain and agony, etc.

(2.) Briefly put the facts in the case are that the complainant sustained injury in the right foot on 15th July, 1991 for which the complainant being a medical doctor himself treated the injury of his own and when it did not heal, the complainant went to the respondent hospital on 1st August, 1991 where he underwent several surgeries and was discharged on 23rd September. The complainant again reported to the hospital on 1st October as out-patient with complaint of breathlessness and was admitted in the hospital on 2nd October, 1991 and discharged again on 10th October, 1991 and since then the complainant has been under treatment for kidney related problem for which he was taking treatment including dialysis but from other places. The complainant unfortunately expired on 7.8.1998.

(3.) The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, is that he reported to the respondent hospital after 15 days of the injury in the right foot with a fulminating fever, vomiting and rigor of a duration of one week. In the respondent hospital he was diagnosed as a diabetic with blood sugar of 500 mgs. and wound in the right foot having become gangrenous, in the hospital he was under the treatment of Dr. T.J. Cherian, Physician who referred the case to Dr. Vinoo Abraham, the Plastic Surgeon. On 3rd August, the Surgeon did the debridement by removing the dead tissues and planned for a reconstructive plastic surgery and simultaneously being treatment for control of diabetes. On 6th August, 1991 the complainant underwent myocutaneous microvascular flap reconstructive surgery; for the right foot which lasted for about eight hours. Next day, the complainant developed respiratory distress. Post operatively the complainant was treated with massive antibiotic therapy (Claforan and Netromycin both I.V.), heavy doses of heparin, blood and intravenous fluids. Later there was serious collection under the flap which became oedematous and necrosed in one portion; the necrosed portion was removed under general anaesthesia. Later, the complainant developed fever with chills which was attributed to Malarial parasites and Micro Filariae. Every now and then the complainant developed respiratory distress, bleeding per rectum. Suddenly, the BP went down and was transferred to EMR where it was diagonised that infection had spread to bones leading to septicaemic shock and later acute renal failure. In the complaint he also states that on 5th September, 1991, wound exploration of currettage of infection in the bone was done under anaesthesia on 10th September, 1991, a saphenous graft from left leg was done to the flap for improving vacularity. The initial surgery lasted for six hours. As circulation was not proper there were two corrective surgeries to improve the circulation on the same day, one in the evening and the other at midnight lasting for four hours each. On 23rd September, the complainant was discharged with a raw wound in the right leg and the sutured wound in the left leg with a advice to come for daily dressing. On 30th September, 1991, the complainant reported back to the hospital, underwent another skingraft which was done over the raw wound on the right foot under GA as an out-patient. On 1st October, the complainant reported again with history of severe respiratory distress and was re-admitted where he was treated with heparin and oral anti-coagulants apart from other medications. Complainant was discharged (thrown out to use the words of complainant in his complaint) on 10th October, 1991. After this, the complainant states, he reported to the hospital for periodic wound dressings. Later he developed oedema; swelling all over the body, visual impairment after which he could not report to the Surgeon. At the time of filing the complaint (8.1.1993), complainant states of being totally bed-ridden, unable to use his right leg as the wound is still raw. Left leg also cannot be used because of poor venous return and oedema, vision in both eyes is impaired to the maximum core. The complainant had gone into a state of chronic renal failure which necessitates periodic dialysis and a renal transplant at a later stage. It is his case that he had reported to the respondent Hospital with an injured foot for treatment and what he got in the bargain after two stays in the respondent hospital is all the ailments enumerated above and the complainant attributes this to the mismanagement of the case by the respondent hospital for which he specifically alleges mismanagement in five areas. They are :