GURUVAMMAL Vs. G NAVANEETHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in O. P.30/2000 on the file of District Forum, Madurai is the appellant herein.

(2.) Her case was as follows: She was a poor vendor with a family of four daughters. Her husband was a mill worker. She was suffering from pain in her lower abdomen for over two years having menstrual period four to five times every month. She consulted the first opposite party, a General Surgeon who after examination, diagnosed it as tumour (Fibroid Uterus) and advised its removal. The complainant paid Rs.15,000 as charges demanded for the surgery. She was admitted as in-patient on 24.3.1999. On 27.4.1999, without the aid of gynaecologist, the surgery was done at about 3.00 p. m. The first opposite party, during the surgery had carelessly and negligently stitched the ureter along with vagina, the urethra organ for discharge of urine which started coming out through vagina. The first opposite party assured the complainant that the urine tube would be removed within few days, but it was removed only after 10 days. The steps taken to stop the leaking of urine failed, the abdominal and pelvis pain surfaced and continued and the stomach swelling made the complainant look like a pregnant woman. Though the complainant had spent Rs.15,000, she was not relieved of the pain and the umbilical hernia. On inquiry, it was admitted that urine leak was a mistake by the first opposite party who advised a second surgery. The complainant requested the first opposite party to do the second surgery free of cost as it was only due to his mistake, the second surgery became necessary. The first opposite party refused to oblige. The complainant approached Government Rajaji Hospital whose doctors, after examination identified the negligence caused by the earlier hysterectomy and that the leak and pain was due to Vaginal Fistula. She was advised Tranvesical repair which was to be done only after her regaining bodily strength. The repair was done on 30.9.1999. She was in the hospital till 15.10.1999. The urine leak stopped, but the bulging of stomach continued making her immobile most of the time. The legal notice sent on 16.8.1999 got an answer with untenable and blatant denials necessitating the filing of the complaint for gross negligence, deficiency in service and for payment of compensation for such deficiency and costs.

(3.) The first opposite party filed a version denying any deficiency in service on his part and further stated that the surgery was done with the aid and in the presence of N. Gomathy, Gynaecologist. On completion of various tests and examination only surgery under spinal anaesthesia was done on 27.4.1999 at 3.00 p. m. It was done with due care and skill. Foley's catheter was inserted to drain urine. Clear urine was drained. On the third post operative day, the catheter came out. But the complainant refused to have it put back. She left hospital against medical advice on 8.5.1999. Even at the time of admission, Dr. Gomathy had observed and noted Umbilical Hernia which was not attributable to VVF for it was a post operative risk in gynaecological operation. Even when the complainant was presented with this inherent risk for the occurrence of which, the first opposite party was ready to do corrective surgery free of cost, she was not willing. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. The second opposite party, Insurance Company had stated that they were not liable to pay any compensation and if at all any claim became payable the first opposite party was alone liable to pay the same.