V. BHAVANI Vs. S. SIVA SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. V. Bhavani, original complainant before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) and Appellant herein had filed this first appeal being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had dismissed the complaint of medical negligence against Dr. S. Sivasubramaniam, Respondent herein and Opposite Party before the State Commission.

(2.) Appellant approached Respondent for treatment of irregular menstrual bleeding on 24.02.1998 and Respondent after examining her and conducting relevant tests advised that she be admitted in the Hospital for undergoing a Trans Cervical Endometrial Resection (TCER). She was required to purchase the medicines from Respondent's clinic and also pay Rs.3000/- for the surgery. The surgery, which lasted nearly four hours, was conducted under epidural anaesthesia but because the surgical tools and apparatus were not sterilized in advance and there was no pre-arrangement for a generator in case of power failure, which failed four times during the surgery, she experienced severe pain during the surgery and on the third day from the surgery she developed Sepsis, resulting in high fever, body pain, retention of urine and abdominal swelling. Respondent prescribed some medicines but she suffered renal failure and her husband was advised to admit her to Meenakshi Mission Hospital for treatment of renal failure. She was shifted to that Hospital and admitted in the Intensive Care Unit, where she was treated for Septicaemia, Jaundice and Renal Failure and was also put on ventilator support. Because of the sincere and effective steps taken by a team of doctors at that Hospital, the Patient recovered from her coma and though she was discharged from the Hospital, she continues to have joint pains, nervous weakness and shrunken kidneys because of which she might need renal transplantation in due course. Being aggrieved because of the medical negligence on the part of Respondent, which resulted in enormous pain and suffering as also heavy expenditure, Appellant issued a legal notice to him claiming a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs as damages and compensation for medical negligence and deficiency on his part. Respondent, however, sent an evasive reply and denied the charges. Aggrieved by this, Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that the Respondent be directed to pay her total amount of Rs.15 Lakhs as compensation under the following heads: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_64_NCDRC_2013_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Respondent on being served filed a written reply denying that there was any medical negligence on his part, as alleged by the Appellant. The charge that the equipments were not sterilized was specifically denied by Respondent, who stated that the Resectoscope, Telescope and Cautery Loops were sterilized by immersion in cidex solution prior to the surgery as also all other equipments, which included electrical cords, suction and irrigation tubes as per standard procedure. It was also specifically denied that there was any power-cut during the surgery, which was completed within an hour. Since the Patient was under epidural anaesthesia throughout the surgery, the possibility of her seeing anything, including her contention that there was a power failure, is not factually correct. After successful completion of the surgery, the Patient was recovering satisfactorily until the fourth day when it was noted that her urine output was very low and, therefore, her Blood Urea and Serum Creatinine were tested and found to be high. After medical examination, Appellant was diagnosed with Acute Renal Failure and immediately referred to Meenakshi Mission Hospital for Dialysis. Respondent stated that even after examination in Meenakshi Mission Hospital he visited her to check her progress and the doctors there informed him that she had developed Respiratory problems, Jaundice and Vomiting and, therefore, put on ventilator and kept in the Intensive Care Unit. However, she never lost consciousness and subsequently recovered. Respondent gave the best possible medical treatment and care exercising the required professional skills needed in this case. The post-operative condition was because of her pre-existing renal problems, for which she was also taking treatment. Therefore, the charges of medical negligence and deficiency in service are totally baseless.