A ATHILAKSHMI Vs. A RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the Complainant that due to the negligence of the Doctors who performed a simple family planning operation, his wife lost her life. After operation the Appellant came out from the operation theatre and without washing her hands left the clinic in hurry. For the deficiency in service complaint is filed by him against all the three Doctors who were present at the time of the operation.

(2.) THE learned counsel, Mr.V.Prabhakar, appearing on behalf of Appellant submits that the Appellant has not performed the operation though she was called by Respondent No.3, Dr.Niramadi Diwakaran, owner of the Anandi Clinic when the condition of the patient, who was operated upon for the family planning, was serious. At that time, Dr.Mrs. Usha Rani, Respondent No.2, was present in the operation theatre. It is the contention of the Appellant that when she went at the clinic the condition of the patient was serious and Anaestehtist, Dr. Shantinathan, who was also called, gave oxygen to revive the patient but the patient died. She, therefore, left the hospital. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the Appellant has maintained the same stand since beginning, i.e. in reply to the notice issued by the Complainant.

(3.) THE State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Chennai, has not believed the Appellant and had passed the impugned order dated 24.11.1998 in O.P. No. 268 of 1993. By the said order the Appellant, Dr.(Mrs.) A.Athilakshmi is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Hence, this appeal.