RAMADEVI SUPER SPECIALTIES HOSPITAL Vs. P RASOOL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Sri Ramadevi Super Specialties Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of P. Rasool Khan and another (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondents').

(2.) According to the Respondent, he had been suffering from back pain which got aggravated while walking and he, therefore, approached the Khaleel Nursing Home at Cuddapah on 15.07.2003 for treatment. Since he did not get any relief, he then approached the Petitioner/Hospital at Tirupati where he was admitted on 23.10.2003 and thereafter prescribed medicines for several days. He had to visit the Petitioner/Hospital on three occasions and spent a large sum of money during these visits. On 14.12.2003 a CT scan was also conducted and the Petitioner/doctors advised that he should undergo a surgery. Respondent deposited Rs. 20,000/- for this purpose which included pre-surgery tests like blood tests, ECG, X-ray etc. After undergoing surgery conducted by Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 at the Petitioner/Hospital, Respondent was discharged on 05.02.2004 but had to get himself admitted again to the Petitioner/Hospital since the pain became even more unbearable. He was prescribed expensive antibiotics for 10 days and again discharged on 23.02.2004. Respondent noted that despite the operation and the medical treatment, the sutures in the operative area started oozing some pus for which he was again prescribed some medicines and advised to control his diabetes. However, when the leakage continued and the Petitioners/doctors used unparliamentary language and asked him to control his diet, Respondent decided to consult another doctor at Vijaya Healthcare, Chennai where after a detailed check up he was advised to undergo a surgery in the same area. During the surgery on 26.04.2004, it was found that a piece of gauze was present in his body which was responsible for the various complications post-surgery in the Petitioner/Hospital. This foreign object was thereafter removed and the Respondent was discharged on 11.05.2004. Since leaving a foreign object during surgery amounts to medical negligence and deficiency in service, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that Petitioner be directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and suffering, Rs. 80,000/- as amount spent on his surgery/treatment at Petitioner/Hospital, Rs. 47,000/- as expenses incurred for 2nd surgery at Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai together with 12% per annum.

(3.) Petitioners, however, have contended that there was no medical negligence on their part. According to them, Respondent was suffering from hypertension and uncontrolled diabetes and this enhanced the possibility of wound infection and delay in wound healing. In fact, these facts were duly explained to the Respondent before surgery and also written in his consent form which he had duly signed. During the surgery, doctors also noted that an earlier surgery had also been conducted in the same area and this had resulted in a chronic infected granulation tissue with loculated pus and fibrosis and there was collection of pus in the system. Petitioners have also stated that since the procedure was done through microscopic surgery, the gauze could not have been left in the body during this surgery and was already present during the first surgery.