M. RAJAVADIVELU Vs. JANAMMA HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by M. Rajavadivelu, original complainant before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) and Appellant herein being aggrieved by the order of that Commission, which had rejected his complaint of medical negligence against Opposite Parties Janamma Hospital and 2 of its doctors, Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively herein.

(2.) In his complaint to the State Commission, Appellant had contended that his late wife Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Rajavadivelu alias Vijaya (hereinafter referred to as the Patient), who was otherwise keeping good health, had been admitted to Respondent No.1/Hospital on 02.01.1998 for undergoing Hysterectomy, which was done on 03.01.1998 by Respondent No.2 under general anaesthesia administered by Respondent No.3. She was transfused one bottle of blood during the surgery. Appellant was thereafter informed that the surgery was successful and the Patient would recover within one hour. However, at 9.45 a.m. Appellant was told by the Respondents that the Patient had developed breathing problems and would need to be shifted to the nearby Chennai Kaliappa Hospital for ventilator support. An ambulance was sent from that Hospital and the process of shifting the Patient to the ambulance took about 10 minutes. No doctor accompanied the Patient in the ambulance and only a nurse was present. It was contended that during the transit period in the ambulance Patient was again deprived of oxygen since the oxygen was not pumped to the Patient through an ambu bag, which is required for patients with breathing problems. This delay proved to be fatal because as stated in the admission sheet of Chennai Kaliappa Hospital it was found that the Patient was not conscious and the pulse rate and heart sounds were not heard. She was shifted to the ICCU and connected to the ventilator with a diagnosis of Hypoxic Encephalopathy caused due to lack of oxygen to the brain. Tracheotomy was done on 04.01.1998 and thereafter Patient was shifted to Ramachandran Medical College Hospital which had better medical facilities, like MRIs etc. However, in spite of all efforts, Patient passed away on 03.04.1998. It was contended that the Patient, who was healthy and as per the pre-operative tests like ECG and blood tests all her vital parameters were absolutely normal, expired because of the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Respondents. After the surgery was over when there was breathing problem, life-saving equipments like a ventilator were not available in the Respondent No.1/Hospital whereas if Patient had been put on a ventilator and sufficient oxygen to the brain had been ensured she would not have suffered Hypoxic Encephalopathy, which caused her death. The time taken to shift the Patient to the Chennai Kaliappa Hospital took about an hour, which under the circumstances, as stated earlier, proved to be fatal. Appellant, therefore, issued a legal notice to the Respondents claiming a sum of Rs.19.50 Lakhs as compensation and damages. In response, Respondents met Appellant to discuss a compromise, which, however, did not go through. Appellant, therefore, filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service against the Respondents and claimed Rs.16.50 Lakhs on account of medical expenditure and Rs.3 Lakhs as damages.

(3.) Respondents on being served filed a written rejoinder denying the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service against them. It was stated that the Patient, who had been treated on earlier occasions for various ailments by Respondent No.2 and was thus well-known to her, had prior to conducting the Hysterectomy undergone all the tests and precautions in the Respondent No.1/Hospital to ensure that surgery was not contraindicated. The surgery was conducted by Respondent No.2, who is a well qualified Gynaecologist with four decades of experience and who had performed a number of similar surgeries. Respondent No.3, who administered the general anaesthesia, was also a well-qualified and capable anaesthetist and the procedure was fully successful. Post-surgery the Patient had regained consciousness but because she did not totally respond to the satisfaction of Respondent No.2 and because of her long association with the Patient, Respondent No.2 thought it advisable to transfer her to another Hospital dealing with cardiac problems. It was under these circumstances that the Respondents contacted doctor at Chennai Kaliappa Hospital, who immediately sent an ambulance with a trained attendant, and it was only after ensuring the availability of oxygen in the ambulance that the Patient was shifted. The Patient was stable on reaching Chennai Kaliappa Hospital and from the records, it is clear that the cardiac arrest occurred in the Chennai Kaliappa Hospital while the Patient was in the process of being shifted to the ICU. Even after the cardiac arrest the Patient had survived for 3 long months which clearly indicate that death was not due to the surgery done by the Respondents or due to post-operative complications in the Respondent No.1/Hospital. It was, therefore, contended that the subsequent events cannot be attributed to the Respondents and a cardiac arrest can occur any time for which the Respondents cannot be blamed.