GANTA MOHANA LAKSHMI Vs. C V RATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant a married woman with three children complained of pain in her left hip in about 1991. Her left leg was short by 1 inch right from her birth. She consulted one Dr. G. Subbarao, Orthopaedic Surgeon at Eluru and was treated by him. In June, 1991 the said doctor told her that she had to undergo an operation and advised her to consult the first opposite party. On 15.6.1991 the complainant consulted the first opposite party who told her that she had to undergo two-stage operation and if necessary her total hip should be replaced. The complainant got herself admitted in his nursing home on 2.7.1991 and the first opposite party conducted first operation on 5.7.1991. He again conducted the second stage operation on 25.7.1991 and informed her husband that there was total hip replacement and the operation was a success.

(2.) On the first post operative day i. e. , on 26.7.1991 her husband found that the toes of the complainant were pale and there was no sensation below the left knee i. e. , operated leg. The complainant complained pain in her left hip and leg. When it was brought to the notice of the first opposite party he stated that blood circulation to the toes and sensation to the operated leg would improve gradually. Later the complainant and her husband found that the operated leg was more in length than the right leg. When the opposite party was informed of this he told them that the exact size "hip Replacement" was not readily available as it had to be imported from abroad and, therefore, in order to avoid delay he adjusted the available hip replacement and the difference in length between the legs could be adjusted by arranging a boot to the other leg. He himself arranged for such a high heel boot at a cost of Rs.650/-. There was no improvement in the blood circulation to the toes and sensation to the leg and the complainant was suffering continuous pain even after two weeks after the operation and as such her husband informed the first opposite party that he would take his wife to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences for treatment. But the first opposite party insisted and forced them to remain in his nursing home on the plea that she had been improving satisfactorily and would become normal in due course after some exercises. In fact her husband requested the opposite party to avail the services of any specialist from any other hospital to restore the blood circulation to her toes and sensation to her leg. Even then the first opposite party assured them that he would look after everything about her safety.

(3.) The complainant did not move from her bed for about 25 days and she had been complaining continuous pain in her leg. On 20.8.1991 some persons in the nursing home made her to walk with the help of zimmer frame. When the complainant complained unbearable pain in her leg and was unable to walk the exercise was abandoned. On 22.8.1991 there was swelling of her left foot and there was total change in the colour of toes and they became completely cold by 23.8.1991. Seeing the condition of the complainant her husband wanted to take her to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) for treatment. The first opposite party even then insisted to keep her in his nursing home promising that he would get the services of doctors from NIMS. However, when the complainant and her husband insisted the first opposite party discharged her reluctantly from his nursing home on 23.8.1991. He also gave a letter stating the details of treatment given to the complainant. On 23.8.1991 itself the complainant rushed to NIMS and consulted the doctors. On examination she was told by the doctors that damage was caused to her leg due to lack of blood circulation and that she should have come to NIMS much earlier and at that stage nothing could be done except her leg from above the knee should be removed as otherwise her life would be in danger. Accordingly she was admitted on the same day and her left leg from above the knee was amputated on 27.8.1991. She was discharged on 25.9.1991 with a direction to come up for check-up after one month. But in the meanwhile she suffered pain in her left hip on 15.10.1991 and when she consulted the doctor at Eluru he advised her to go to NIMS only. On 18.10.1991 when she went to NIMS necessary tests were conducted and the doctors told her that hip replacement which was fixed by the first opposite party should be removed by another operation. The complainant was admitted on 18.11.1991 and the said operation was conducted on 25.11.1991. As they forgot to remove the steel wires and bone cement another operation was conducted at NIMS on 16.12.1991 to remove the steel wires and bone cement and she was discharged on 31.12.1991.