LAXMAN THAMAPPA KOTGIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original complaint is filed by the husband of deceased Elda Laxman Kotgiri, who breathed last in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Hospital, Byculla owned and managed by the Central Railway. The complainant is an employee of the Central Railway working as "Helper" in the Signal and Telecommunication Department at V.T. (now C.S.T., MumbaiJ. His wife Elda was admitted in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Hospital, Byculla at about 8.30. a.m. on 31.12.1990 because of her labour pain. She delivered a male child at 9.25 a.m. on the same day. After normal delivery, Elda and her husband were persuaded by the Hospital staff to undergo Family Planning Operation i.e. Tubectomy. The complainant had three children from Elda. After having obtained affirmative reply, Elda was kept on fasting. Elda was actually operated for Tubectomy on 1.1.1991. The complainant had made a serious grievance that while conducting Tubectomy Operation, Elda died unnatural death in Operation Theatre. The complainant attributed gross medical negligence to the Doctors who performed Tubectomy operation. The complainant therefore approached the State Commission for grant of compensation of Rs. 5 lakh. Along with complaint, complainant placed on record number of documents to substantiate the case of medical negligence.

(2.) The O.Ps. resisted the consumer complaint by filing written statement. The O.Ps. stoutly denied all the allegations of medical negligence. According to the O.Ps. Elda wanted to have Family Planning Operation because couple had already three children. The delivery was normal and successful. Elda was taken to Operation Theatre for Tubectomy operation on 1.1.1991 at about 1.10 p.m. The Operation was also successfully performed and completed at about 1.25 p.m. According to the O.Ps., patient regained consciousness. Her general condition was normal. Therefore she was taken to Ward at about 1.35 p.m. However at about 1.55 p.m. or thereabout attending Nurse gave an emergency call. Acting on the emergency call, Doctor rushed to the Ward and found Elda pulseless. Blood pressure could not be recorded. Heartbeats could not be heard. All the necessary resuscitative measures were taken. But Elda could not be revived and ultimately Elda was declared dead possibly due to sudden rise in the blood pressure and cardiac arrest. The dead body of the Elda was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was carried out on the dead body of Elda. In the post-mortem Report, cause of death was shown as Post operative shock, which is unnatural". The O.Ps. denied that patient died because of gross negligence on the part of the Doctor or the Hospital. The O.Ps. have also challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer. The medical treatment was given free of charge and therefore the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

(3.) The State Commission by order dated 14.6.1993 dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs. The State Commission held that no negligence was fond on the part of Doctors or the Hospital and that the complainant is not a consumer vis-a-vis Railway Hospital.