MAMTA SRIDHAR IYER Vs. KUNJANNAM POULOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS complaint has been filed by the complainants against O. P. doctor alleging medical negligence case of the complainant in nutshell may be stated as under: complainants are husband and wife residing at 405, 4th Floor, Amardeep Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai. O. P. No. 1 is Dr. Kunjannam Poulose, residing at Philomen House, 12th Road, Chembur, Mumbai and O. P. No. 2 is the Insurance Company. According to complainants, O. P. No. 1 is doctor having qualification of M. B. B. S. She is having nursing home and dispensary at Chembur and Ghatkopar respectively. The complainants alleged that O. P. No. 1 is only conversant with normal deliveries and does not conduct medical termination of pregnancies. Their main allegation is that she had conducted unauthorized operation on complainant No. 1 and conducted medical termination of pregnancy on 10. 7. 1990 though O. P. No. 1 was 70 years old and her hand was bound to shake and quiver. This resulted in the perforation of uterus and also perforation of large intestine and without consent of Complainant No. 1 and 2, she conducted medical termination of pregnancy and complainants as such lost their child in the womb at the hands of O. P. No. 1 due to negligence. O. P. No. 2 is the Insurance Company who had given policy of professional indemnity to the O. P. No. 1 and as such O. P. No. 2 is bound to compensate complainants in the case of medical negligence of O. P. No. 1. Complainants had sent letter to O. P. No. 1 dated 17. 3. 1991. O. P. No. 1 sent reply in which she had admitted to have received letter from complainant dated 17. 3. 1991 and she informed that she was covered under doctor's indemnity insurance policy and she had forwarded complainant's letter to New India Assurance Company for necessary action. According to complainants there is no whisper in the letter sent by O. P. No. 1 that she was not negligent in any matter as alleged. Hence according to complainants this amount to admission on the part of O. P. No. 1.

(2.) COMPLAINANTS further says that O. P. No. 1 was negligent since consent of the complainants had not been obtained either for carrying out medical termination of pregnancy and for administering anaesthesia by Mr. Patel which amounts to an unauthorized operation conducted by O. P. No. 1. According to complainants this amount to assault on complainant No. 1. It is further averred by the complainants that due to lack of experience of O. P. No. 1, there was uterus perforation along with a perforation of large intestine which resulted into grave physical harm and injury caused to complainant No. 1 and complainants ultimately lost their child in the process. Because of uterine perforation and perforation of intestine complainant No. 1 was subjected to repeated surgery due to gross negligence of O. P. No. 1. She was also subjected to a caesarean section of lower segment, thus rendering her incapable of having normal pregnancy hereafter.

(3.) THE complainant further pleaded that she was administered anaesthesia without consent of either of the complainants. O. P. No. 1 relied upon totally clinical findings instead of doing sonography. They pleaded that at Rajawadi Hospital, a colostomy operation was performed on the large intestine and since first colostomy leaked, second colostomy had to be performed. At Rajawadi Hospital at the time of colostomy complainant No. 1 was just 26 years old and she was required to go every now and then for dressing of the wound and post-operational investigations. She had to undergone another operation at Kamdar Nursing Home which operation also initially failed. Hence another operation for closure of colostomy was performed. A letter was sent by complainant No. 2 to O. P. No. 1 on 15. 8. 1990 in which he requested O. P. No. 1 to share the burden of Rs. 70,000 which he was required to spend because of mistake committed by O. P. No. 1. Another letter on 15. 2. 1991 was also sent by complainant No. 1 to O. P. No. 1 followed by two other letters of similar complaints. O. P. No. 1 did not deny allegations made by the complainants. Thus those facts are deemed to have been admitted by O. P. No. 1.