K SADANANDAN Vs. LISIE HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging 'medical negligence' on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.

(2.) Very briefly stated facts of the case are that the wife of the complainant No. 1 (since deceased) on getting pregnant second time, approached Dr. Kalyani Devi of Kochin Hospital on 5.12.1989. After her examination, she was advised Uterus scanning. Since this facility was not available elsewhere, the deceased and the first complainant approached the second respondent Dr. K. George, working as Head of Gynaecology in the first respondent Hospital, who after examining her advised certain tests. With the report of these tests, the complainant and deceased again met the second respondent on 8.12.1989 and they were advised uterus scanning, which was got done on 9.12.1989. When the complainant reached with the report of the uterus scanning, the second respondent was not there. It was gone into by one of the assistants of Dr. Saramma Easaw, who stated that the foetus is dead and has to be removed by a simple D and C operation, which was proposed to be done on 12.12.1989. It is the case of the complainant that on 12.12.1989, deceased was admitted in the operation theatre at about 5.30 p.m. At about 7.30 p.m. one of the nurses asked the first complainant to sign the paper for removing foetus, since the patient was having profuse bleeding. After some time, the nurse came again demanding blood for transfusion to the deceased which was supplied at about 11.00 p.m. same day. Deceased was taken to the ICU where she breathed her last on 18.12.1989 at 12.10 hrs. It is alleged that the wife of the first complainant died due to wilful negligence of the doctors who attended the operation. The profuse bleeding was caused by the negligence of the doctor, who conducted the minor D&C operation. Second facet of alleged negligence is that the patient became unconscious till death due to failure in the proper application of anaesthesia.

(3.) Upon issue of notice to the opposite parties by the State Commission, they filed the written version denying any wrong doing on their part. Oral and documentary evidence were led before the State Commission who after hearing the parties at length, passed a very detailed and extensive order dismissing the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.