MADHAVI AMMA MEMORIAL TRUST Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were the opposite parties before the State Commission where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the appellants.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the wife of the first respondent and mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sreedevi was admitted in the first appellant hospital with abdominal pain on 28. 5. 1996 wherein after examination it was diagnosed to be a case of fibroid uterus and patient was advised abdominal hysterectomy. The surgery was carried out on 29. 5. 1996 at about 7. 00 a. m. and during the surgery at about 7. 20 a. m. the patient (since deceased) developed Brady Cardia for which a spinal shock for sensitivity to anaesthesia was suspected and emergency measures were resorted to, as a result of which Brady Cardia and Hypotension were promptly corrected but the patient suddenly developed respiratory failure. At this stage the cardiologist Dr. P. B. Jayagopal was called to deal with the emergency and follow-up action was taken. At about 9 a. m. the patient showed signs of cerebral irritability leading to suspicion of anoxic encephalopathy requiring continuous ventilatory support. Since sufficient facilities were not available with the hospital, it was decided to shift the patient to another hospital, i. e. , K. G. Hospital at Coimbatore, where the patient reached at about 11 a. m. and died at about 3 p. m. It was the case of the complainant that the hospital did not have the facilities for taking-up this major surgery; they did not have oxygen equipment or ventilatory support facilities, as also, the surgery was carried out based on pre-operative tests carried out on 17. 5. 1996 whereas at the time of admission on 28. 5. 1996 fresh pre-operative tests should have been done, to ascertain the ability of the patient to withstand the rigours of major surgery especially when it was not a case of emergency. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed alleging medical negligence. This complaint was contested by the opposite parties denying any medical negligence on their part. Both the parties led evidence along with one expert evidence from either side. While the appellant/opposite party led the evidence of Dr. A. K. Unikrishnan, Anaesthetist as expert witness, Dr. Louis M. Paruthikal was examined as expert witness on behalf of the complainants/respondents.

(3.) THE State Commission after hearing both the parties and perusal of material on record, held the appellants guilty of medical negligence and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,95,068 based on the salary and applying a multiple of 13 along with cost of Rs. 2,000 in case of non-compliance of the order this amount was to carry interest. It was clarified that the above amount shall be paid jointly and severally by the appellants. It was also directed that out of this amount of compensation 2/3rd of the amount was to be deposited in the nationalized bank in the name of the minor complainants, i. e. , respondent Nos. 2 and 3 till they attain maturity and the complainant was entitled to draw interest on this amount and utilize this for the purpose of maintenance and education of minor complainants.