MD ASLAM Vs. IDEAL NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 4.12.1993 passed in Case No. 250 of 1992 where complaint of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are that Chand Bibi w/o complainant was a gynie patient. She was consulting Dr. Sarojini Sarangi. On 20th July, 1992 she approached Dr. Rabatikanta Das, respondent No. 2 for operation upon her ailment. Respondent No. 2 advised the complainant to consult respondent No. 3 who was retired Professor in Gynaecology. On her examination by respondent No. 3, the deceased was admitted in Nursing Home on 26.7.92 at about 5.30 p.m. with bleeding P.V. At about 8.00 p.m. when the bleeding was profuse, respondent No. 2 administered injection to check bleeding after consulting the respondent No. 3. On 27.2.1992 the deceased was operated upon by respondent No. 3 for hysterectomy operation for removal of uterus and ovarie. The operation continued from 12.30 p.m. till 3.30 p.m. and there was no complication. The respondent No. 3 after giving post operative direction and suggesting injections left the patient. The deceased was brought to the room. At night respondent No. 3 was informed that the condition of the deceased was stable. On 28.7.92 at about 9.40 a.m., respondent No. 3 visited the patient and received complaint of pain at the .operation site and fullness of upper part of the abdomen which was normal sign of general anaesthesia. On 29.7.92 respondent No. 3 again visited the deceased to find her coughing and sneezing. On enquiry the deceased told the doctor that she had taken ice-cream on the previous night. She was cautioned by respondent No. 3 not to take cold food and was advised to take oral liquid food. Extra abdominal binder was given to protect the stitching and for healing up of the wound. On 30th July, 1992, respondent No. 3 again visited the patient. On examination of tongue and throat, he found smell of meat in the breath. The deceased admitted to have taken Roti, Meat and Dal in the morning. She was advised to avoid rich food like meat and to take semi solid diets. Cough medicines were continued advising not to take rich food. On 1.8.1992 the respondent No. 3 found cough scare throat and abdominal distention. On 2.8.1992 it was found that throat of the patient was congested. He found that the patient had taken puri and fried egg as breakfast. She was again cautioned not to take rich food. On 3.8.92, in the night, respondent No. 3 visited the patient and found the wound to be alright, chest was clear and advised removal of sutures on 4.8.92. On the morning of 4.8.92, the respondent No. 3 examined the patient and found that there was soakage of the wound. After removal of two sutures disruption was noted. It was felt necessary by the respondent No. 3 to have emergency operation for closure of abdomen under general anaesthesia. Thereafter making all arrangements re-suturing operation was perfomed by respondent No. 3 from 2.00 p.m. to 5.20 p.m. During last part of the closure of the abdomen, patient developned caridiac dysroythmia and hypotention. A cardiac specialist was immediately called to attend and after treatment when the cardiologist gave clearance, the further stitching to close the abdomen was performed. In view of the condition of the patient, respondent No. 3 remained present till midnight and consulted the patient's condition with Dr. Sanatan Rath, a neuro surgeon and Dr. J.P. Das, a cardiologist. On 5.8.92 respondent No. 3 visited the patient and supervised the treatment. At about 10.00 a.m. patient expired and that is why a complaint was filed before the State Commission for award of compensation by respondent No. 3. Grievance of the complainant was that adequate care was not given for operating the patient and treating the deceased for which the patient expired.

(3.) AFTER considering the case, the State Commission returned the finding that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. All steps available had been taken in the case and there was no negligence either on the part of the Nursing Home or on the part of the doctores attending the patient. Whenever consultation or advice of a specialist was necessary, it was sought for, discussions were made and treatment was continued. Though the death was unfortunate, opposite parties could not be blamed in the circumstances of the case.