D SRIVALLI Vs. SHOBHA BALKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original complaint is filed by Miss, D. Srivalli against the opposite parties alleging medical negligence. She was 28 years old at the time of filing of this complaint. Her case is that over a period of 4 months, i.e., from April 1995 to August 1995, she was having continuous pain in the right side of the abdomen. The Central Government Health Scheme Hospital at Kanchanbagh which examined her during this period referred her to O.P. No. 1, Dr. Shobha Balkrishnan, a Specialist in General Surgery and Consultant at the Gagan Mahal Nursing Home, O.P. No. 2. The complainant approached Dr. Shobha on 19th August, 1995. The complainant was told that she is having Appendicitis and that she needs surgery for the removal of the same. On 23rd August, 1995 when the complainant consulted the O.P. No. 1 the latter gave a list of test to be undertaken before the surgery. On 24th August, 1995 the complainant was admitted in the hospital and on the same day an ultrasound of the abdomen and the pelvis was done at the Gagan Mahal Nursing Home by Dr. Jyothi Roy.

(2.) It is alleged that the results of the ultrasound tests were not made known to the complainant at that time. She was taken in for surgery at 9.30 a.m. on the next day, i.e., on 25th August, 1995. The complainant alleges that in addition to removal of the appendicitis, her right ovary and part of the fallopian tube were also removed by the Surgeon, O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3. Subsequent to the operation, she was told that her right ovary had a big cyst and that it is affected by Endometriosis and that part of the fallopian tube was said to be bent and adhered to the ovary and since it could create problems in future, part of the fallopian tube was also removed.

(3.) The complainant alleges that his removal of the right ovary and the fallopian tube was unwarranted. It is a case that if there was a cyst, the liquid in the cyst should have been drained or utmost the cyst should have been removed and that there was no case for removal of the ovary. As far as fallopian tube is concerned, it is argued that there is no disease in the tube and that there was no reason to remove it. It is alleged that this removal was done without the consent of the complainant and that the removal of the right ovary and part of the fallopian tube has jeopardised chances of her marriage and reduced her chances of becoming pregnant by more than 50% and further it has caused her mental agony, and the complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 40 lakh.