VINITHA ASHOK Vs. LAKSHMI HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant, Smt. Vinitha Ashok, aged about 26 years has filed this complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Respondent No. 1, Lakshmi Hospital situated at Ernakulam, Cochin is owned by Dr. K.K.R. Warriar, who is the husband of Respondent No. 2, Dr. Santha Warriar. Respondent No. 3 Dr. Somalatha P. Shenoy, Respondent No. 4 Dr. C. Balachandran and respondent No. 5 Dr. Mohan are also working in the hospital in various capacities. According to the complainant, she had a son born around 6.6.1989 by a caesarean operation. Subsequently, she and her husband suspected pregnancy and decided to consult a doctor and they went to Lakshmi Hospital on 3.2.1990. The complainant was examined by respondent No. 2, Dr. Santha Warriar, M.B.B.S., D.R.C.O.G. (London), who is working as Gynaecologist and Obstetrician in that hospital. The said doctor told the complainant that she was pregnant and advised her to terminate the pregnancy in view of the fact that earlier delivery was a caesarean one. The complainant was also advised to meet the Doctor on 10.2.1990 for terminating the pregnancy. However, on 9.2.1990 also the complainant went to the said Hospital. According to the complainant, Dr. Santha Warriar without any proper examination presumed that it was a case of termination of undesirable normal pregnancy.

(2.) IT is further the case of the complainant that on 10th February, 1990, she along with her husband and sister -in -law arrived at Lakshmi Hospital in the morning at about 8.30 a.m. Dr. Santha Warriar took her to labour room. Neither she nor her husband suspected anything unusual. At about 10 Oclock respondent No. 3, Dr. Somalatha informed the complainants husband that the complainant was bleeding profusely and therefore, they have decided to conduct an operation. Dr. Somalatha also told the husband of the complainant that the complainant was in a very serious condition and it was better to inform her near relatives. At about 4 Oclock, the operation was over and the complainants relatives were informed that she was safe and under sedation. Dr. Santha Warriar informed the complainants husband that it was a case of Cervical Pregnancy and her uterus has been removed.

(3.) THE complainant further alleged that an unnecessary D and C operation was performed upon her by the respondent -doctors which resulted in the removal of her uterus, which was a vital organ. The removal of her uterus was due to rash and negligent act of Dr. Santha Warriar since she had conducted the operation without proper examination and diagnosis. In fact there was no diagnosis. If the doctor had been careful in her examination, it could have easily found out that it was a complicated case of Cervical Pregnancy and the doctors should not have conducted the operation in a casual manner. The operation could have been fatal to the complainant. The negligence of Dr. Santha Warriar has deprived the complainant of her uterus at a very young age. The person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he/she is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. When consulted by a patient, a doctor owes her certain duties, namely, duty of care in deciding whether to undertake that case and a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. The Doctor must bring to his/her task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. The diagnosis of an ailment or administration of a treatment is normally the first matter with which a doctor is concerned. A doctor is held liable in an action for negligence if he/she makes a wrong/negligent diagnosis/administration of a treatment and there by causes injury to the patient. A mistaken/negligent decision for a particular administration of a treatment is necessarily a negligent act, liable for compensation. This is so particularly because the mistake of such nature implies an absence of reasonable skill and care on his/her part, regard being had to the ordinary level of skill. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs, details of which have been annexed to the complaint, from the respondents as she is mentally disturbed and psychologically depressed thereby impairing her health and future chances of pregnancy. She suffers from irritability, depression and total lethargy. She avoids company of her husband and this creates a lot of disharmony and tension in the family.