DHARANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, Smt. Dharani (the patient), on 07-06-2004 delivered a male baby by LSCS (Caesarian section) in the Government Maternity Hospital, Pondicherry (OP-2). She was discharged on 15-06-2004. Thereafter, she had continuous pain and wound infection. Therefore, from 17 to 29/6/2004 she took treatment from Dr. Shanti at Tindivanam. Thereafter, patient for the same pain and infection was again admitted in OP 2-hospital from 30-06-2004 to 13-07-2004. The wound was not healed, still there was pus discharge. She consulted Dr. Prabhavati at Tindivanam, took CT scan at Vallipuram. She advised surgery again at OP 2-hospital. Again, for the 3rd time, the patient got admitted in OP-2 from 17-08-2004 to 01-09-2004, but no cure. The OP failed to appreciate the CT scan report, did not care for the patient's pain and continuous pus discharge from the wound. Thereafter, she took treatment from Dr. Parshuraman at Tindivanam from 02-09-2004 to 22-09-2004, but to no avail. Then she approached Santosh Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Chennai on 23-09-2004 and an emergency surgery was performed on next day, by Dr. Kannan. It was assisted by Dr. Meera Bai. Patient was discharged on 04-10-2004. The discharge summary mentioned about a foreign body with damage to jejunum loops & sigmoid colon forming an abscess cavity. Therefore, complainant alleged negligence against OP 2-hospital, who performed LSCS surgery negligently, left behind foreign body (pad). The patient suffered physically and also monetarily, moreover, her new born baby was deprived of maternal nourishment for 6 months. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum at Pondicherry against OP 2 for negligence and against OP 1, as vicariously liable and sought relief of Rs.18,50,000/-.

(2.) The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the complainant was also dismissed by the Puducherry State Commission. Therefore, the complainant filed this revision petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that, there was negligence and carelessness in performing the LSCS operation. The doctor at OP 2 left behind a foreign body or a gauze pad. The counsel brought our attention to the discharge summary of Santosh Hospital. It revealed that Dr. Kannan; the surgeon, operated the patient on 21-04-1994, under general anesthesia. The foreign body was removed with jejunal resection. He performed anastomosis with sigmoid colon. The surgeon noted finding as,