ANASUYAMMA Vs. P RAGHUNANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -AGGRIEVED by the order in CD No. 79 of 2000 on the file of District Forum, Ananthapur, opposite party preferred F. A. No. 880 of 2004. FA 879 of 2000 has been preferred by the complainants and since both these appeals arise from a common complaint they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the deceased Anuradha is the wife of the first complainant and mother of the second complainant. The patient approached opposite party for terminating her pregnancy. Opposite party confirmed pregnancy and prescribed some medicines for termination. Since it was not successful opposite party fixed the operation on 1. 6. 2000 and the complainant brought all the medicines prescribed by the opposite party. The patient was taken into labour room and after 15 minutes opposite party informed the complainant that some complications have developed and advised them to take her to Manipal Hospital. First complainant arranged the vehicle and shifted the patient to Manipal but the patient was declared brought dead. The complainant requested the opposite party to give a copy of the case sheet but opposite party refused to give the case sheet and first complainant got issued a legal notice on 22. 4. 2000 requesting the opposite party to send a copy of the case sheet for which opposite party issued a reply but did not send the case sheet. Another notice was issued on 14. 6. 2000 after receipt of which opposite party sent a Xerox copy of the case sheet. The complainant submits that opposite party administered anaesthesia in high dosage and when the patient was being shifted to Bangalore opposite party did not arrange supplementary oxygen and ventilator and did not provide any medical assistance to the patient and was negligent in terminating the pregnancy of the patient which caused her death.

(3.) OPPOSITE party filed counter stating that there is a small inherent risk in the procedure of the MTP and this was duly explained to the complainant and her consent was also taken and that she took all necessary precautions and exercised her best diligence and there was no negligence on their behalf. The patient informed her that she had no history of allergy and she was not accustomed to oral contraceptives and that she has undergone caesarian during her first delivery. Opposite party first opted for local anaesthesia and prescribed Xylocaine. Opposite party also gave intradermal sensitivity test dose and also gave Tetanus Taxodic (TT) injection as a preventive measure after 10 minutes patient developed convulsions. Opposite party denies the allegations that Xylocaine was given in high dosage into intravascular system. Without post-mortem findings it is difficult to ascertain the cause of death and that the death may be because of any cause and therefore there is no negligence on their behalf.