M. SARALA OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR FOR MEDICAL SERVICES, 21, SRINIVASA NAGAR, VILLIVAKKAM CHENNAI Vs. SUNDARAM MEDICAL FOUNDATION AND ANR. MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHANTHI COLONY, IV AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, Mrs. S. Sarla, met with an accidental cut of her right index finger, during use of washing machine on 04.09.2004, at about 12:30 P.M. Immediately; she, along with her husband, rushed to Sundaram Medical Foundation, Dr. Rangrajan Memorial Hospital (OP1). She took the amputated finger in a plastic zipper bag. The 'on duty' doctor gave pain killer injection and applied a bandage. No plastic surgeon or specialist attended immediately for re-implantation of amputated finger i.e. re-constructive surgery. At about 6:00 P.M., the specialist in reconstructive plastic surgery, Dr. V.B.N. Murthy (OP2) came to the hospital, examined the patient's wound and the amputated finger. He assured her of full recovery, by plastic surgery. The patient was taken for operation at about 6:45 P.M. The patient was brought to the room at 11:30 P.M. after surgery. Post operatively, OP-2 surgeon did not visit the patient. Therefore, it was an act of omission committed by OP-2. On 05.09.2004, the OP2 visited the patient, found that there was good blood circulation at the operated finger and the operation was successful. He raised questions about the air conditioned room of the patient, instead of keeping him in ordinary room for proper recovery.On 06.09.2004, the OP2 examined the patient and informed that wound was healing properly and the finger will reunite. The complainant alleged that the antibiotic doses were not administered at regular specified intervals. It was given only at 1.00 P.M. after the reminder of the complainant. On 07.09.2004, the complainant noticed that there was no reunion of finger. Therefore, the OP2 opined about amputation of the part, to avoid future gangrene. This led to distress, shock and mental agony. The complainant approached the Government Stanley Medical Hospital and consulted the doctors. They informed that the finger had to be amputed since gangrene had set in, which will cause 13% of permanent disability. Alleging negligence, that there was lack of immediate medical attention and delay in commencing the surgical treatment reduced the possibility of recovery, the complainant filed the complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) and prayed for compensation of Rs.33,48,000/-.

(2.) The State Commission dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the complainant/appellant filed this first appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The counsel for Appellant /complainant, submitted that there was total negligent care from the OP-hospital. The management of such surgical wound was delayed by the OPs. Therefore, the patient was not recovered. The medical records are tampered. The counsel submitted that, the Golden hour was lost, whereas, if surgery had been performed forthwith, the recovery would have been 100%. The discharge summary was given without dates. It was manipulated at many places. It was given at the insistence of complainant, as she had to make a claim under medical insurance. The OP no. 1, in collusion with OP no. 2, manipulated the hospital records, which are self-serving and do not carry weight. Counsel brought our attention to serval medical literatures. As per Campbell's Textbook of Orthopedics;