MADHAVAN MALANKAD Vs. UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainants have filed this complaint seeking for an award of compensation of Rs. 35,20,000 under various heads but have restricted their claim to Rs. 20,00,000.

(2.) THE case of the complainants is as follows: Complainant No. 1 is the husband of deceased Smt. Susheela Madhavan (for short, the 'patient') and complainant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of complainant No. 1 and the patient. The patient was admitted to opposite party (for short, 'O.P.') No. 1 Hospital for the purpose of Bone Marrow Aspiration Test (for short, 'BMA Test') on 2.4.2000. The admission was made by O.P. 3 as instructed by one Dr. Chakrapani, Associate Professor of O.P. 1 Hospital, and the patient was allotted Room No. 815. On 3.4.2000 at about 9.00 a.m. the patient was informed by O.Ps. 2 and 3 that she has to report to the treatment room for the purpose of preliminary check -up and to get ready for BMA Test. Accordingly, the Duty Nurses took the patient to the treatment room. The case of the complainants is that complainant No. 1 informed O.Ps. 2 and 3 that the patient was a patient of Dr. Chakrapani and in his absence no test should be conducted but he was assured that the patient was taken only for a preliminary check up to get ready for BMA Test to be done by Dr. Chakrapani. The nature of preliminary check up or its consequences were not explained to the patient. According to the complainants, consent of complainant No. 1 was not taken for conducting the BMA Test by OPs 2 and 3. Written consent of the patient was also not obtained in the presence of complainant No. 1. After the patient was taken to the treatment room, within few minutes after entering the treatment room, the closed door of the treatment room was opened and O.Ps. 2 and 3 rushed outside in a hurry. Then complainant No. 1 saw the patient was lying unconscious. Her eyes were closed and she was immediately removed to the Intensive Care Unit in the 10th Floor of the Hospital after the arrival of Dr. Chakrapani. The further case of the complainants is that O.Ps. 2 and 3 conducted the BMA test on the patient without her consent, without any authority or permission and without any minimum professional care. The further case of the complainant is that due to the negligence of O.Ps. 2 and 3, the BMA needle pierced into the right ventricle and caused injury to the heart of the patient. Therefore, Thoracic surgery was conducted in O.P. 1 Hospital and thereafter the patient was put on ventilators for three more days and she was declared dead in the morning of 6.4.2000. In this regard, Dr. Chakrapani has given a written complaint to O.P. 1 that O.P. 2 has undertaken the procedure without his knowledge or consent and without supervision and that during the procedure the patient went into shock and shifted to Intensive Care Unit. The further case of the complainants is that O.Ps. 2 and 3 colluded each other and subjected the patient for BMA Test as a 'Test Case without authority, permission, supervision or consent of Dr. Chakrapani or the husband of the patient and without observing the minimum professional care. The sum and substance of the case of the complainants is that the patient died due to the negligence of O.Ps. 2 and 3 in conducting the BMA Test and the same has resulted in great hardship and injury and, hence, they are entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 from the O.Ps.

(3.) O .P. 2 has filed his version denying the averments made in the complaint and sought permission to file a further version, if required. Subsequently, O.P. 2 filed additional version. The defence taken by O.P. 2 is that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non -joinder of parties, since Dr. Chakrapani and Dr. Ashok Shetty have not been made parties to these proceedings. O.P. 2 has further stated in his version that the patient was admitted and examined by O.P. 3 and he was informed by O.P. 3 on 3.4.2000 at about 8.30 a.m. in the hostel about the BMA Test case admitted by him on 2.4.2000. The further case of O.P. 2 is that O.P. 3 requested him to conduct the BMA Test on the patient at the earliest on the very same morning on 3.4.2000. After obtaining the necessary consent from the patient, the patient was admitted for the procedure and, accordingly, the procedure was done taking all required precautions, professional care, caution and competence as per the practice/procedure, as he had already conducted about 36 such cases earlier. According to O.P. 2, the patient suddenly went into shock and, therefore, O.P. 2 took all remedial measures and informed Dr. Chakrapani who was in the same building and who came immediately to provide all possible care and the patient was shifted to Intensive Care Unit. In the Intensive Care Unit, Dr. Ashok Shetty performed emergency Thoracotomy, as an emergency life saving measure. The sum and substance of the version of O.P. 2 is that there is no negligence on his part and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.