A XAVIER Vs. CANTONMENT POLYCLINIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act to direct the O. Ps. (opposite parties) to pay a compensation of Rs.19.36 lakhs for their gross negligence in treating the complainant's wife along with interest and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that on 29th September, 1996 his wife Smt. Rani Xavier had a slight temperature and body pain due to regular work and strain as such the complainant i. e. , the husband of Smt. Rani Xavier took her to the Cantonment Poly Clinic i. e. , O. P.1 for consultation. On consultation, she was advised to be admitted by Dr. Fiyasice, 4th O. P. Since Dr. Thomas i. e. , 5th O. P. was not available as he had gone to Vellore, CMC Hospital. As per the advice of 4th O. P. , the complainant's wife was admitted in the 1st O. P. clinic on 1.10.1996. She was treated for 3 days and during that time her temperature was normal and she was cheerful. On 3.10.1996 Dr. Thomas (O. P. No.5) checked her and opined that she can be discharged. On 4.10.1996 the complainant's wife had two Poories for her breakfast from the hospital canteen and after sometime she started vomiting for which she was taken for scanning without the consent of the complainant and they did not discharge the patient on that day. At about 7 p. m. the O. P. Nos.2 and 3 checked the patient and informed that she had to undergo a minor operation on 5.10.1996. The O. Ps. have insisted the complainant to give his consent for an emergency operation even though the complainant's wife was feeling well and was not feeling any pain. Hence the complainant was confused and he had no other option but to give his consent for his wife to be operated upon by the O. Ps. even though he did not know the contents or correct facts stated in the medical papers. The patient was taken into the OT at 12 noon and she was brought back at about 2 p. m. On 5.10.1996 at about 4 p. m. the patient had an urge to pass urine and at that time she felt very uncomfortable and uneasiness and she had a feeling of chocking while speaking but nothing was informed to the complainant about the condition of the patient by the O. Ps. AT 2.00 a. m. i. e. , at midnight, one of the complainant's relative Miss Gracy saw the blood oozing from the operated place and the blood had spread upto the patient's head and her clothe was soaked in her own blood even though she was made to lie in a slanting position after the operation. As Miss Gracy raised an alarm after noticing the blood and serious condition of the patient, the O. Ps.2, 3 and 4 along with some other doctors took the patient to the operation table immediately and operated for the second time without any consent from the complainant. The O. P No.2 came out of the OT at 6.00 a. m. i. e. , nearly after 4 hours and informed that the patient was alright, but as they have no ICU facilities they have to shift the patient to St. John's Medical Hospital. The O. Ps. contacted St. John's hospital and informed them over the phone about the patient's condition. The complainant was asked to arrange for an ambulance and when the patient was shifted into the ambulance, she was not provided with any oxygen since oxygen was not available with the 1st O. P. Hospital. When the patient was admitted to St. John's Hospital one Dr. Kanneth D'cruz informed that they require around 15 to 20 bottles of fresh blood for the patient. With great difficulty and with the best support of relatives, friends and well wishers, they were able to collect about 20 bottles of fresh blood but they could not save the life of the patient and she breathed her last on 7.10.1996. According to Dr. Kanneth D'cruz's report the patient's gall bladder had been removed carelessly and negligently as a result of which her liver kidney surface had been damaged seriously while performing the operation at the 1st O. P. Hospital, due to which the patient was expired on 7.10.1996. The complainant had filed a criminal case against the O. Ps. , which had been disposed as withdrawn, as per the memo filed by the complainant. In view of the said memo this complaint is adjudicated and proceeded on merits.

(3.) The case of the complainant is that the death of complainant's wife was due to the negligence of the O. Ps. while removing her gall bladder as well as irresponsible behaviour of the O. Ps. in operating her for the second time without having any necessary facilities. The further case of the opposite party is that the 1st O. P. 's clinic lacked adequate medical aid and proper care and there was gross dereliction of duty on the part of the O. Ps. which directly resulted in the death of the patient. Hence, the complainant after issuing legal notice, has filed this complaint before this Commission.