HOLI CROSS HOSPITAL Vs. MANIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is a case of alleged medical negligence, wherein consent was given to perform the surgery for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy by the wife of the patient/complainant -Shri Maniram. There is no consent given by the patient though he was conscious and he was in a proper frame of mind and was eligible to give the consent. Secondly, consent given was for Laparoscopic Surgery, which results in small incisions compared to the conventional surgery which causes large incisions which results in longer time for healing. These facts are not disputed. Both the Fora below have a given concurrent decisions holding that hospital was negligent in performing the surgery which resulted in the infection/puss formation and longer stay in the hospital.

(2.) THE patient was admitted to the hospital on 05.08.1997 and was operated on 06.08.1997. He was discharged from the hospital on 14.08.1997, but the complainant suffered severe pain, infection and puss formation, therefore, he was again admitted to the hospital on 17.08.1997, where he was treated for post -operative wound infection. As the infection had extended to the rib, he was discharged on 18.09.1997 after one month of treatment. Even after a month long treatment, the patient was not cured fully. Accordingly, he was treated at District Hospital, Ambikapur and remained under the treatment of Dr Pandey who told the complainant that the rib was damaged during operation and infection has developed and referred the complainant to Dr Pandey, who again treated the complainant on 14.10.1997 to 19.12.1997. The complainant was treated at Dhanwantari Hospital, Bhillai.

(3.) THE District Forum held that the petitioner was negligent in its service and awarded a meager compensation of Rs. 52,538/ - to the complainant towards damages together with cost. Instead of paying this small amount Holi Cross Hospital decided to file an appeal and prolonged the agony of the complainant"patient before the State Commission. The State Commission observed in its judgment an extract of which reads as follows: On perusal of record it is noticed that at page 72 of the appellants paper"book is the copy of the Discharge Ticket dated 18.09.1997 and Final Diagnosis is Post Operative (Cholecystectomy) wound infection, rib infection. Moreover, the Medical Certificate issued by the Holy Cross Hospital on 18.09.1997 also shows that the patient was treated for post operative cholecystectomy wonld infection, rib infection. So there is no doubt that there rib infection and the treating doctor was well aware of the same. May be that the patient did not know about it till he was told by Dr Firdoushi that his rib was damaged during operation. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the complainant has not submitted any experts report. However, it is noticed that the complainant had got Dr Firdoushi examined before the District Forum and he has in his deposition stated that pus was flowing from the near the right side of the rib and it was a wound caused due to the earlier operation. The patient was suffering from post -operative infection. In cross examination he said in para 6 of the deposition that in our country large number of cases of post -operative infection are reported. He further stated that during stay at the hospital the bandage is tied on the wound so there is lesser chance of infection. Infection may be caused even after discharge. He further stated that infection may also develop if antibiotics are not properly taken.