PADMA Vs. SUDHA NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant fell sick and she was admitted in the opposite party Nursing Home on 2.8.1991. She was operated upon on 5.8.1991 by Dr. V. Bhoom Reddy, proprietor of the Nursing Home, who released adhesions, closed Ilea perforation, anastamosis and appendicitis was also done. She was an in patient till 6.9.1991. During the post operative period, treatment was done mostly by the doctors, who were not qualified in Allopathy medicine and hence she developed severe complications including fecal fistula and bedsore. She became very weak and she developed fecal fistula due to infection. Although she was charged more than Rs.30,000/- for the operation and her family incurred heavy expenditure, she developed severe complications due to poor post operative treatment. Thereupon she was referred to Dr. S. S. Reddy of the Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad on 21.10.1991 and she was accordingly admitted and was operated upon for resection of terminal, 1 feet of ileum along with caecum was done and end to end anastomosis of ileum to ascending colon was done. This operation had to be done in view of the complications that developed for the complainant due to poor post operative treatment by the opposite party. She incurred an expenditure of Rs.39,566/- at the Apollo Hospital as she was discharged on 27.11.1991 after staying for more than a month and the family of the complainant also incurred a sum of Rs.15,000/- for their stay at Hyderabad due to the said complications and operation. The education of the complainant was severely effected; all this happened due to negligence of the doctors of the opposite party hospital. Hence, she approached this Commission claiming a compensation of Rs.1,84,566/- under different heads.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party it is admitted that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party Nursing Home on 28.7.1991 for the complications like fever with chills and rigors for 15 days, vomiting and pain in abdomen. She was toxic and in agony. She was kept on conservative treatment. Although she had partial relief, her parents got discharged her on 31.7.1991 against the medical advice. She did not recover fully and still she was having persistent complaints. She was again brought back on 2.8.1991 in a precarious condition with complaints of fever, vomitings, pain in abdomen, distension of abdomen and her condition was moribund. Her parents were asked to take her to Hyderabad as her survival chances are only 10 to 15% but the parents of the complainant told Dr. Bhoom Reddy that they were prepared for the worst and for any outcome. Hence, investigations were carried out and it was found that the patient was suffering from acute abdomen due to enteric perforation with peritinitis. An emergency surgery was contemplated and that the parents were informed about the decision but the parents were not willing for the said course and, therefore, surgery had to be postponed. But her parents came to a decision in the morning of 5.8.1991 and accordingly gave their consent for surgery. Dr. Bhoom Reddy conducted the surgery after opening the abdomen. It was found that there was fulminant peritinitis due to perforation of the small intestine because of the typhoid ulcers. The gut was very fragile. Adhesions were relieved and the perforated gut was resected and end to end anaestamosis was carried out. The appendix was also removed. Peritonial toilet was done after leavage corrugated rubber was kept and abdomen was closed layer by layer. She had a stormy post operative period. For her, every day was a struggle between life and the death. Post operative care was carried out. Dressings were done either by Dr. Bhoom Reddy or his son Dr. V. Surayanarayana Reddy and Dr. S. Rama Reddy, the visiting physician. Only for routine functions like pulse reading, recording of blood pressure and recording of temperature were performed by other doctors under their personal supervision. There was no negligence on their part. The hospital charged only Rs.6,000/- towards operation and hospital charges. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

(3.) The complainant was examined as P. W.1 and her father as P. W.2 besides marking Exs. A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the opposite party, four witnesses were examined including himself as R. W.1 and Exs. B-1 and B-2 were marked.