B L SURYANARAYANA CHETTY Vs. HOSMAT HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant No.1 is the husband, complainant No.2 is the son of the now deceased Nagasundaramma who was suffering from left knee problem and was admitted to OP1 hospital on 12.10.1998 and was operated upon on 21.10.1998. The complainants contend that on account of poor hygienic condition and poor post-operative care Nagasundaramma developed breathing problem and ultimately expired on 10.11.1998. The complainants further contend that the death is as a result of negligence on the part of hospital staff and the doctors who were attending on the patient. On account of her death, the complainants have been subjected to great mental stress and agony. The complainants contend that they have spent more than Rs.3,34,856 for the treatment. They also contend that OPs 1 to 3 have failed to supply the medical records on the request of the complainants and they have thereby prayed for a total compensation of Rs.16,25,000 under various heads.

(2.) Ops 1 to 3 have filed common version denying the deficiency of service alleged against them. They have contended that Nagasundaramma was aged about 75 years when she visited OP 1 hospital as out-patient on 4.6.1997; she was unable to walk independently for the preceding 6 months. Her medical history revealed that she had undergone left knee replacement on 26.3.1984 in Canada. On her visit to OP1 hospital, she revealed that she had severe pain in both the knees. On examination of the left knee, surgical scar was present along with tenderness. Range of movements was 45, right knee joint also had tenderness with the range of movements 80. It is contended that the patient was advised to undergo total knee replacement on the right side and revisional total knee joint replacement on the left. On 23.6.1997, Dr. Gill who examined the patient opined that as per the Electrocardiogram and Chest X-Ray and other parameters, the patient was fit for operation. It is also contended that Nagasundaramma was hypertensive since 16 years. On 13.7.1997, the patient was admitted for total knee replacement of the right leg which procedure was done on 1.8.1997. Gait training was started from 2.10.1997 with mobilisation exercise (CPM) of the right knee. Patient was discharged on 19.10.1997; she came for follow-up and advice. She was again admitted for total knee replacement of the left knee on 12.10.1998. Revision total knee replacement meant repetition of the surgery for failure of total knee surgery which was already done in Canada in 1984. Before the admission as patient, she was examined by a Cardiologist Dr. Prabhakar on 17.8.1998 who advised that the patient could be taken up for surgery. On admission, the patient was examined by a Consultant Physician Dr. Shankar Kumar who is arrayed as OP7, who opined that the patient was clinically fit for surgery. After surgery on 21.10.1998, swelling of the left lower limb got reduced. Thereafter physiotherapy was given.

(3.) The OPs contend that before undertaking any procedure or treatment, the patient and hfer family members were explained of the potential risks and complications involved and their consents were taken for such procedure, treatment or operation; proper pre-medications were administered to prevent complications. It was also contended that during the procedure, the patient was given epidural anaesthesia. Specialists like OPs 3 to 9 have supervised the procedure and have also treated the patient. They have contended that the patient woke-up and obeyed of commands after the procedure. The patient was in full control of her mussel and was able to lift her arm and head. The patient was well with her normal mental function during post-operative 24 hours. The OPs contend that the treatment provided to the patient was according to standard technique after going through the entire case history and in consultation with the specialists and, therefore, they deny that there was a deficiency on their part.