MANIPAL HOSPITAL Vs. J. DOUGLAS LUIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts relevant to disposal of both the revision petitions are that the complainant, Mr. J. Douglas Louis (herein referred as 'the patient' since deceased), was working as Area Manager of Trans World Travels. He underwent thoracotomy surgery for carcinoma of left lung with left pneumonectomy on 31-10-2003 at the Manipal Hospital (OP1). It was performed by Dr. Nithyanand Shetty, Cardio Thoracic Surgeon assisted by Dr. Sameer Rao (OP 2), a Cardiac Surgeon at OP1. Post operatively, the patient was shifted to ICU for recovery. After regaining consciousness, he was shocked to experience severe hoarseness of his voice and he could barely speak. He immediately inquired with the doctors, but he was informed that he would regain his voice after few months. Without any further improvement in his voice, he was discharged from hospital on 10-11-2003. The complainant alleged that OP-hospital failed to ascertain the cause of hoarseness, did not seek opinion or consultation from ENT Department. It was alleged that the anaesthesia was administered to the patient using Double lumen tube, Cuffs and Stylet (aluminium), by a trainee anaesthetist, Dr. S. K. Singh (OP5), despite knowing that, the Cardio-thoracic anaesthesia using Double lumen tube was to be administered only by an expert anaesthetist i.e. Dr. Nagaraj Gowda, the Head of Department. But, the OP 1/hospital engaged Dr. Prabhu Shankar (OP4) and a trainee, Dr. S. K. Singh (OP-5) to administer anaesthesia. The Double lumen tube was inserted by Dr. S. K. Singh which caused injury to the patient's vocal cord. Due to wrong and repeated insertion of the tube, it resulted in irreparable damage to the patient. Even the patient took speech therapy for few days, but there was no improvement. The speech therapist referred him to Dr. Shankarshana, who performed Fibre Optic Laryngoscopy (FOL) and opined that the patient had posterior subluxation of left Arytenoid and issued the report accordingly. He also informed that there was very little hope of cure because only limited treatment options were available. Thereafter, the patient immediately approached the OP-hospital wherein Dr. Malathi advised him to consult Dr. E. V. Raman, the HOD of ENT for the opinion. On 31-08-2004, Dr. E. V. Raman performed laryngoscopy of the patient using Hopkin's Rod Telescope. At that time, Dr. Raman admitted verbally that there was a problem with left Arytenoid, but he was hesitant to give it in writing whereas he offered the patient the refund of amount paid for laryngoscopy. The complainant further opted for another opinion from an eminent ENT surgeon, Dr. D. M. Ankelesaria at Mumbai. On 23-10-2004, Dr. Ankelesaria examined him by FOL and confirmed that the patient had anterior subluxation of arytenoid with left vocal cord paralysis.

(2.) Thereafter, alleging medical negligence on the part of OP1-hospital and the doctors (OPs 2 to OP 6) therein, the complainant filed the complaint before District Forum, Bangalore for alleged medical negligence and prayed for compensation of Rs. 18 lakhs.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by all the OPs, who denied the allegations of negligence. The District Forum, based on affidavits, the cross-examination of Dr. Shankarshana, Dr. Nagaraj Gowda and Dr. E.V. Raman allowed the complaint and vide its order dated 10.05.2006, directed the OP-1/ hospital to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith Rs.5,000/- towards cost to the complainant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint against the opposite parties No. 2 to 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the parties filed cross appeals before the State Commission. The Appeal No.1479 of 2006 was filed by Manipal Hospital (OP 1) for dismissal of complaint, whereas the Complainant filed Appeal No.1481 of 2006 for enhancement of compensation. Both the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission. Hence, being aggrieved, both the parties filed the instant two revision petitions.