LAWS(NCD)-2006-2-4

R K BAKSHI Vs. DRIVETECH ACCESSORIES PVT LTD

Decided On February 20, 2006
G.VIVEKANANDA VARMA Appellant
V/S
CHINTA BHARAMARAMBA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is filed against the order passed by the State Commission in FA No. 1079/1996 dated 30.12.2005 whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are: The petitioner Dr. G. Vivekananda Varma performed Tonsillectomy operation on thirty years old Mr. Veerabhadra Kumar on 13.6.1993 at 1.00 p.m. in his nursing home after administering local anesthesia and he died. District Forum and State Commission came to the conclusion that no material was brought on record to show that the patient was treated to release from Laryngeal spasm. The patient was shifted in unconscious state to Swatantra Hospital and then to NIIMS, which is a specialty hospital, on 25.6.1993 where the final diagnosis given is as follows: "Post anoxic encephalopathy with diffused brain damage Collapse right upper Post Tonsillectomy"

(3.) The statement made by the petitioner is that he performed Tonsillectomy at 1.00 p.m. at his nursing home after giving anesthesia himself. When the complication arose the petitioner called for help of Dr. Kameswari, a qualified Anesthetist. Dr. Kameswari gave an affidavit that she reached the hospital at 1.00 p.m.; that she observed that the patient's pulse rate, B.P., heart rate were all normal; that the petitioner had already connected the patient to Boyle's apparatus and arranged endotracheal intubation; and there spontaneous tube was reintroduced again within a period of 10 minutes; cyanosis disappeared at 3.30 p.m.; patient was normal, at 4.30 p.m. patient's condition was stable and at 5.30 p.m. another anesthetist, Dr. C.S. Murthy also came and endotracheal tube was disconnected, respiration 20 p.m. one bottle of blood was also given and only when the oxygen cylinders were exhausting, the patient's relatives were advised to take him to Rajahmundry. She stated in her affidavit that Dr. Verma is qualified to give local anesthesia although no reasons are given as to why the petitioner could not have asked the anesthetist to come and assist before the surgery itself.