S SURESH KUMAR Vs. ANAND HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is a young lad of 23 years of age. According to him, he has completed his SSLC and obtained Diploma in National Trade Certificate in Trade Practice of Instrument Mechanic, and he was seeking for a job. He has been throughout his education period good in sport. He was an athlete and largely took part in extracurricular activities. It was at this juncture the complainant started having pain in his right knee and he went to the 1st opposite party Anand Hospital for consultation and treatment. On exa-mination, the 1st opposite party informed him that the complainant was suffering from Varicose vein with Haemanioma in his right leg and recommended Sepha femoral ligation with liga -tion of the feeding muscles of the Haemangioma. He was made to believe that he must have an operation since otherwise it will lead to more complications. He was admitted in the hospital on 18.1.92 and the operation was done by the 2nd opposite party Dr. Darwin, on Wednesday the 19th January, 1992. The complainant was discharged on 27.1.92. To his shock and surprise, he found that after the operation he had lost his normalcy and that he could neither stand properly nor walk normally. He found that as a result of the operation there was a foot drop. On account of this he suffered incalculable measure of mental pain. Even though he was called for interviews for jobs, he could not attend the same. There was possibilities of getting a good job in the Gulf countries. But it is his misfortune that he was unable to move about freely. All these happened because of the operation done by the opposite parties. He could definitely say that the opposite parties were negligent during the operation and during the post-operative period. On these allegations the complainant has prayed for compensation for loss of reputation, for treatment and for mental agony, all totalling to Rs.9,70,000/-.

(2.) The 1st opposite party M/s. Anand Hospital filed a written version contending that the complainant came to the 1st opposite party Hospital in the second week of December, 1991 with the complaint of irregular swelling over the right calf muscle. It was found from the investigation made by the 1st opposite party that the patient was suffering from Haemangioma with Varicose veins. The complainant was referred to the 2nd opposite party Dr. Darwin, a consultant of the hospital. Prior to the operation, the complainant was informed of the nature of the operation and its consequences. The treatment for varicose veins was done perfectly. When the skin below the right popliteal fossa back to the right knee joint where the tumour was situated was incised superficially, the Surgeon found that the tumour was infilterating deep into the muscle plane and also surrounding major structures like nerves, veins and vessels in the popliteal fossa. Hence the Surgeon did not attempt to remove the tumour since excising it would have become totally disastrous either to the life or the leg of the patient. The Surgeon only ligated the vessel leading to the tumour and that too only in the superficial plane. The wound was closed immediately after the operation and the toe movements were perfectly normal and there was no foot drop. All the wounds healed except a minor gaping in the wound in the posterior aspect of the knee joint. The patient was then discharged at his request on 27.1.92. Even when he was discharged there was no sign of foot drop. His toe movement was checked on 20.1.92, 22.1.92 and 24.1.92 and it was found normal. After the discharge, the patient came to the hospital for regular dressings. The sutures were removed on the 12th day and the Surgeons noted that the size of the raw area was increasing and bleeding profusely. The patient was therefore advised for skin grafting, but the patient refused to undergo the same. On 7.2.92 the patient came to the hospital with severe bleeding from the ulcer area. On 8.2.92 an emergency surgery was done to ligate the bleeding vessel. The patient was discharged on 9.2.92. Even at that time the patient did not have any foot drop. He was again advised skin grafting, but he again refused. Therefore, there was no negligence either on the part of the 1st opposite party hospital or on the part of the Doctor the 2nd opposite party who had performed the surgery. The opposite parties cannot be held liable for this careless attitude of the patient. The 1st opposite party is not aware of the alleged foot drop. In any event, the 1st opposite party is not liable. Therefore even if the complainant had suffered foot drop, it cannot be attributed to any negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party. It is not correct to say that there was negligence during the post-operative period. For these reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The 2nd opposite party Dr. Darwin filed a written version stating that the complaint as against him is barred by limitation and that he was only a Consultant in the 1st opposite party Hospital and therefore he is not liable. Similar to the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party has also denied all the allegations made in the complaint.