PUSHPA GEORGE Vs. CARITHAS HOSPITAL & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 29.10.2008, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeal Nos. 355/2005, 527/2005 & 686/2005, vide which, while partially allowing appeal No. 355/2005 and appeal no. 527/2005, filed by the OPs, the order passed by the District Forum Kottayam in consumer complaint No. 242/2003, filed by the present petitioner Pushpa George, allowing the said complaint, was modified. The third appeal No. 686/2005 filed by the petitioner/complainant Pushpa George was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Pushpa George who works as Manager at Syndicate Bank, Kottayam, filed the consumer complaint No. 242/2003, against the OPs, Carithas Hospital OP-1 and Dr. Annie Ittiayirah, Gynaecologist at that Hospital, alleging that she consulted the OP-2 Doctor for some gynaecological problem, whereupon she was diagnosed as having fibroids in uterus and was advised to undergo hysterectomy. She was admitted in the OP-1 Hospital on 13.06.2002, where the hysterectomy operation was conducted on 14.06.2002. It is alleged that in the afternoon of 16.06.2002, she developed discomfort, followed by distension of abdomen, associated with great pain. The Doctor after examining the complainant assured her that there was nothing to worry. However, since the said pain and discomfort aggravated, Ryle's tube was inserted through her nostril to her abdomen. Since her condition deteriorated, she was shifted to the intensive care unit (ICU). On 18.06.2002, her CT scan was taken at a diagnostic centre near the medical college. After returning to the hospital, the OP gave her blood transfusion. The Doctors further advised that due to internal bleeding, an emergency surgery was needed. Thereafter, exploratory laparotomy, using a mild vertical incision was performed on her, but the Doctors failed to detect the real cause of internal bleeding. Being in a serious condition, she was put on a ventilator. On 19.06.2002, the bile started oozing out from the drain tube placed in the pelvis region. The complainant was subjected to a short surgery to stop bile percolation. During the surgery, a perforation was found in the terminal ileum, through which, bile was leaking and it was closed. The complainant had to remain on ventilator for about 10 days. On 24.06.2002, she was subjected to tracheotomy and thereafter, ventilator was removed. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 20.07.2002, but she was readmitted to the same hospital on 25.07.2002 as her fever persisted. She was advised to undergo bronchoscopy, but there was no facility for that in that hospital. She was then shifted to Medical Trust hospital, Kochi on 26.07.2002, where her CT scan and other investigations were done and a new treatment was started, which led to improvement in her condition. The complainant finally returned home on 07.08.2002. She alleged that the real cause of her post-operative trauma was the perforation caused in the terminal ileum, which happened during hysterectomy, due to the negligence of the gynaecologist, who conducted the surgery. Had reasonable care and diligence were taken by the OP-2 Doctor at the time of hysterectomy, perforation in the terminal ilium and consequent internal bleeding and inflammation could not have happened. The Doctors at the OP-1 Hospital failed to detect the perforation in the peritoneal ileum for about 5 days. Through the consumer complaint, the complainant sought directions to the OPs for payment of compensation of Rs. 20 lakh, which included Rs. 10 lakh for pain and suffering, Rs. 1,85,000/- as medical expenses incurred at OP-1 Hospital and Rs. 10,000/- as medical expenses at Medical Trust Hospital, Rs. 2 lakh for loss of amenities of life, Rs. 2,82,000/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs. 3 lakh for loss arising from permanent disability.

(3.) The District Forum, vide their order dated 28.02.2005, directed payment of Rs. 3,66,173/- as compensation alongwith cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. The said compensation included a sum of Rs. 1,80,360/- spent by the complainant at the time of treatment at OP-1 Hospital and Rs. 32,963/- spent at Medical Trust Hospital, for which the bill had been issued. The District Forum also awarded compensation for Rs. 1,50,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 2,850/- for making expenses on her stay in the hospital @ Rs. 50/- per day. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant as well as the OP-1 Hospital and the OP-2 Doctor filed separate appeals before the State Commission. As stated already, the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by the State Commission, but the appeals filed by the OPs were partly allowed vide impugned order dated 29.10.2008 and it was directed that the OP-1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 180,360/- to the complainant as expenses incurred during treatment and a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation. It was also directed that the liability of the OP-2 Doctor shall be confined to payment of Rs. 50,000/- only. The District Forum had ordered both OP-1 & OP-2 to pay the compensation allowed jointly and severally. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition, seeking enhancement of compensation and award of interest on the amount allowed by the Consumer Fora below. On the other hand, the OP-1 Carithas Hospital filed a reply statement before this Commission on 08.01.2015, saying that in the execution application filed by the complainant, a sum of Rs. 2,31,360/- had been paid to her by OP-1 Hospital vide DD No. 185261 dated 10.02.2010. The complainant filed the second execution application also, in which the OP-1 Hospital deposited a sum of Rs. 1,29,797/- vide DD dated 09.03.2012 towards interest, which was withdrawn by the petitioner and hence, in total, a sum of Rs. 3,61,157/- was paid by the OP-1 Hospital. In addition, the OP-2 has also made payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as ordered by the State Commission.