C V MATHEW Vs. P BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by Dr. C. V. Mathew i. e. the opposite party in O. P.459/93 of the District Forum, Idukki questioning the order of the District Forum directing the payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 24.4.1993.

(2.) The complaint was originally preferred by the husband of Smt. Sulochana, but later she was impleaded as 2nd complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that the 2nd complainant was admitted in the Arpana Hospital at Thookkupalam on 22.4.1993 in connection with her third pregnancy, as after the 2nd delivery she was advised to avoid third pregnancy. Her grievance is that after abortion and PPS by the opposite party, she was discharged from Arpana Hospital on 26.4.1993. Later she developed little pain and when approached, the opposite party consoled her that there is nothing to worry. On 13.5.1993 she developed acute stomach ache and bleeding and after two days treatment by opposite party she was referred to Nedumkandom Medical Trust Hospital, but after examination they referred her to Medical College Hospital (MCH), Kottayam. But due to financial difficulties, instead of going to MCH she went to St. Johns Hospital, Kattappana where she was treated from 13.5.1993 to 19.5.1993. Subsequently on 23.5.1993 again she developed pain and admitted at Kadamappuzha Hospital and discharged on 31.5.1993. Later, Kadamapuzha Hospital referred her to MCH and she was under treatment there from 15.6.1993 to 21.6.1993. Hence she alleged that she had to undergo all these ordeal and suffering because of negligence at the hands of the opposite party.

(3.) In his written version the opposite party states that the complainant was admitted at Arpana Hospital on 23.4.1993 and M. T. P. and minilap were done on 24.4.1993. . She was discharged on 26.4.1993 and she had no complaints at that time. He added that she was later brought to him on 11.5.1993 for pain and vomiting related to disorder in the small intestine, hence referred to Kattappana Hospital on 13.5.1993. He also states that as M. T. P. is a blind procedure, bleeding, incomplete abortion, perferation of uterus etc. can be happened and this could happen even when done by experts. Hence he denies the liability to pay any amount and maintains not negligent.