RAJULAN LYSANDER Vs. R PAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's case is that the 1st complainant's husband was taken to the hospital of the opposite party on 31.3.1997 since he complained of pain in his lower abdomen. The opposite party represented that to save his life he has to be operated upon and, therefore, the complainant admitted him in the hospital and promised to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as demanded by the opposite party. The opposite party performed the surgery without making the necessary investigation and observing the procedure as a result her husband died on the operation table. Therefore, the complainant, accusing the opposite party of deficiency in service, filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-.

(2.) The opposite party contended as follows: The husband of the 1st complainant was not a healthy person. He was a smoker. He was further addicted to drinks. He was brought to the Nursing Home of the opposite party with strangulated inguinal hernia. There was distension of Thaman. He was also finding difficult to breath. He complained that he could not pass urine. He also said that he vomited. It was diagnosed that the patient was suffering from septicemia due to absorption of toxic materials from the gangrenous intestine. Unless emergency operation was done, the patient's life was in danger. If the strangulated portion had become gangrenous, the entire portion has to be cut and removed. Though the health condition of the 1st complainant's husband was not fit for operation, since there was the likelihood of danger to his life, it was decided to operate upon him. The patient was brought in such a condition that he was struggling for life. Blood test was done. Certain medicines were purchased outside. The opposite party did not receive any fee. They did not receive any hire charges. They also did not receive any amount for the nursing charges or hospital charges. The allegation that the necessary precautions and procedures were not followed is absolutely false. It was a risk that had to be undertaken and was undertaken. It was not an elective operation. The condition of the patient was such that general anaesthesia could not be administered. Spinal anaesthesia was also considered risky and, therefore, local anaesthesia was preferred. Xylocaine was administered by way of injection. At the time of operation, Dr. Mohan and nurses and assistants were present. The opposite party is a M. S. All those who are qualified as M. B. B. S. can undertake surgery. The opposite party is specialized in E. N. T. surgery. He had 18 years of experience. The opposite party's hospital is clear and equipped an air-conditioned operation room with all facilities. All the necessary apparatuses such as Boyles apparatus, Automatic Bio-monitor, Cardiac monitor with defibrillator, E. C. G. were available. Necessary apparatuses for administration of oxygen were also available. After explaining the consequences, the deceased agreed for the operation. He was administered glucose and was given nasal oxygen by inserting tube in his abdomen. The gas and other contents of the stomach were discharged. Antibiotic medicines were administered and pain killer was also given. He was taken to the operation room by about 9.30 p. m. At that time, his pulse was at 120. Local anaesthesia was administered. The opposite party made incision and opened the abdomen. At that time, the heart beats stopped because of the strain of surgery and anaesthetic strain and because of toxic materials mixing with the blood. Immediately, oxygen was pumped into the lung and massage of the chest was also done. The nurse also gave a direct injection into the heart. There was again heart beat but as there was water accumulation in the lung, the lung could not function with the result that necessary oxygen could not be supplied to the heart and, therefore, the heart stopped. Oxygen was pumped directly into the lung but the lung could not absorb. The intra cardiac injection and adrenaline were administered but still the heart did not pick up. Thus, he died of cardiac arrest. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

(3.) The Lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Hence, this appeal.