A RAJANGAM Vs. FREDRICK JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2010, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short "the State Commission"), the Complainants preferred this Revision Petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by first and second Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the treating Doctors") and set aside the order of the District Consumer Forum Disputes Redressal Forum, Sivagangai (in short "the District Forum) in OP/10/2003, thereby dismissing the Complaint.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 14.05.1999, the first Complainant's wife (hereinafter referred to as "the Patient") and who was also being treated by the treating Doctors consulted them for bleeding through vagina and was prescribed some medicines. On 21.07.1999, an ultrasound examination was done as per the advice of the treating Doctors, which revealed a bulky uterus. On 29.08.1999, when the Patient was suffering from serious stomach ache and oozing of the blood, she was admitted as inpatient and after pre-investigative tests were done, she was operated for removal of uterus (Total Abdominal Hysterectomy) on 02.09.1999. It is averred that on 03.09.1999 at around 4 a.m. less than 24 hours after the conduction of the operation, the Patient developed breathing difficulty and sweating. At 4:30 a.m. Doctors discussed the case and decided to perform a Laparatomy and at 10.45 a.m., she was taken to the operation theatre for the conduction of the second operation. At around 1.45 p.m. the Patient was taken to the post operative ward and no bleeding was reported. It is pleaded that at around 12 noon on 04.09.1999, the Patient developed breathing difficulty and was put on sedation and at around 10.30 p.m. her condition deteriorated and at around 9 p.m. the breathing problem worsened. On 05.09.1999 at 10 a.m. the treating Doctors did not take proper steps in immediately shifting the Patient to a higher management centre and on the same day, i.e. 05.09.1999, the Patient died of cardiac arrest. It is averred that it is only because of negligence of the treating Doctor that the Patient died due to excessive bleeding.

(3.) The treating Doctors filed their Written Version stating that all care and caution was taken; a USG was conducted on 21.07.1999, which showed a bulky uterus and it is averred that on 30.08.1999, the second Opposite Party requested the first Opposite Party to help her in the surgery of removal of uterus to be performed on 02.09.1999. As the hemoglobin level was low on 31.08.1999, blood was transfused to the Patient; anesthesia was given and the surgery was performed by the treating Doctors. Even during surgery, one bottle blood was given and the Patient remained conscious. Thereafter the treating Doctors observed that the Patient was suffering from abdominal distension and pain and considered it necessary to conduct a Laparatomy to know whether there was any internal bleed and commenced the Laparatomy in the morning. During surgery, four bottles of blood was given to the Patient. Thereafter on 04.09.1999 symptoms of Tachyphoea and Tachycardia was observed in the Patient and immediately oxygen was given. One more bottle of blood was given on 05.09.1999, when the Patient suffered from breathing difficulty. It is pleaded by the treating Doctors that the Patient died of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (hereinafter referred to as "DIC") and Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome.