S PADMAVATHI Vs. KAMINENI HOSPITALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. S Padmavathy, wife of Lt Col. S K Rao, had preferred a consumer complaint before the A P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, claiming damages for alleged medical negligence in her treatment at the Kamineni Hospital. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had been suffering from stomach ache for sometime. After a series of investigations in different hospitals, doctors advised her to undergo the operation of cholecystectomy at an early date. This surgery involves removal of the gall bladder. It was performed on 19.8.1999 at OP hospital.

(2.) It was alleged that the complainant was kept in the hospital much longer due to problems following this surgery. She was also informed by OP-2 that a surgery was required to place a stent on the damaged portion of the combined bile duct(CBD) through Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio Pancreatography (ERCP) procedure and the stent would be removed after one month, when the CBD had healed. Three attempts were made to perform the ERCP but without success. Thereafter, complainant was informed that she would have to undergo major surgery called Hepatico Jejunostomy. This surgery was performed at Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) on 5.11.1999. The case of the complainant before the State Commission was that she was made to undergo ERCP three times, due to negligence of the OPs. The requisite operation, which was eventually performed at NIMS, could have been performed at OP hospital itself as soon as the damage to the CBD was detected. For the suffering undergone and other problems resulting from the alleged deficient treatment given by the OPs, the complainant sought compensation of Rs 25 Lakhs.

(3.) The case of the complainant before the State Commission, was substantially dependent upon the report of Dr N Nageshwar Reddy, Consultant Gastroenterologist at Medinova Diagnostic Services, according to which the biliary system showed abrupt cut-off at the level of the CHD. In the affidavit evidence of the husband of the complainant it is alleged that the OP-2 while performing cholecystectomy, had cut the CBD of his wife. After discovering this damage, OP-2 should have converted the laparoscopic surgery process into an open surgery, to fix the damage. But this was not done and the patient was made to undergo prolonged laparoscopic surgery.