NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by St. Antony Hospital, Appellant herein and Opposite Party before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission, which had partly allowed the complaint of C.L. D'Silva, Respondent herein and Complainant before the State Commission alleging medical negligence against the Appellant.

(2.) FACTS :

(3.) Appellant on being served filed a written rejoinder denying that there was any medical negligence on their part. It was stated that the Appellant is a charitable hospital which was rendering service to deserving and poor patients. Respondent-Complainant's wife had been admitted in the Appellant hospital where after examination she was diagnosed with Endometrial Cyst and fibromas of the uterus. Patient had agreed to the Laparoscopy after she was clearly informed about the pros and cons of the same, including the possible complications, which could require converting it into an open procedure. On 24.05.2000 after conducting all the pre-operative tests, the Laparoscopy was conducted, which confirmed that Patient had extensive Endometriosis, inflammatory changes and also pelvic inflammatory disease. There was extensive adhesions and some fibrinous fluid. All these were attended to through a time consuming procedure. At 8.00 p.m. on the same day, Patient's haemoglobin dropped to 9.3 and she complained of shoulder pain which was common after Laparoscopy. However, there were no other problems. She was given IV fluids and antibiotics. The next day when she was not responding to conservative management and was showing systemic sepsis and peritonitis, Respondent-Complainant was advised about the need for exploratory surgery. It was denied that Dr. Parra had informed the Patient or the Respondent that her colon had ruptured during the first surgery and faecal matter and other body fluids had leaked into the system which needed to be immediately rectified. The second surgery was conducted by Dr. Parra assisted by other qualified Doctors and it was found that she had severe sepsis with peritonitis endometriosis associated with pelvic inflammatory disease, from which she had been suffering prior to the surgery. Because Patient required prolonged ventilator support and other intensive care facilities, which were not available in the Appellant hospital, she was in her own interest advised admission in an advanced medical centre for which necessary arrangements were made by the Appellant and she was transferred to Sri Ramchandra Medical College Hospital at about 9.00 p.m. accompanied by Dr. Parra, an Anaesthetist and a nurse. It was reiterated that there was no medical negligence or deficiency in the treatment of the Patient and the entire medical expenses came to only Rs.25,330/- which was borne by the Appellant.