D.G. AKKA vs SARVOTTAM RAO

THE complainant has filed this complaint for a direction to the opposite party (for short the "O.P.") to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for the death of his wife alleging negligence against the O.P. in the discharge of his duties as a Doctor.

THE facts in this case are as follows: THE wife of the complainant (for short, the "patient") has consulted one Dr. Mahadevi Malkreddy on 31.10.2001 on the complaint of "Low Back Pain". At that time, there was a swelling below the umbilicus of the patient. It was diagnosed as "Ovarian Cyst" on the basis of the report of ultrasound abdomen. With this complaint, the patient consulted the O.P. on 5.11.2001, who is a Gynaecologist at the M.R. Medical College, Gulbarga. THE O.P. on examination advised the patient to undergo operation for "Abdominal Hysterectomy and removal of Ovarian Cyst". Accordingly the patient was admitted to the Hospital on 5.11.2001 and underwent an operation on 6.11.2001. THE complainant has stated that the operation went on for about 45 minutes under spinal anaesthesia without complications. It is further stated that after two days of the operation the patient complained of pain in abdomen and breathlessness and her body was cold. This was brought to the notice of the O.P. The O.P. on examination found that the patient has Gastritis and will subside by itself gradually, without taking much care to subside the pain in the abdomen. The son of the patient is also a Doctor with MBBS decree and he was with the patient. The main grievance of the complainant is that the O.P. left the station without information and without arranging alternative Doctor to attend the patient in his hospital. Since the patient complained terrible pain, she was shifted to Basaveshwara Teaching and General Hospital, Gulbarga, at about 6.00 p.m. on 9.11.2001. The said hospital diagnosed the case as "Post Operative Septicemia Shock" and there was foul smelling vaginal discharge and the same was brought to the notice of the O.P. on 11.11.2001. Subsequently, the patient was shifted to Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad on 14.11.2001. In the said Hospital, puss was removed. Ultimately, the patient died on 17.11.2001. After the death of the patient, the complainant has filed this complaint.

The O.P. has filed his version denying the allegations of medical negligence. The O.P. in his version has stated that the operation conducted by him went on well and the patient was all right till he left for Hyderabad in the evening of 8.11.2001. It is further stated in the version that the O.P. instructed one Dr. Arunkumar Badasheshi, Professor and Head of Department, and Dr. Pampapathi, Assistant Professor of Anaesthesia, and the Resident Medical Officer to attend the paient as and when required. According to the O.P., the Doctors referred to above in his absence looked after the patient and they provided a good treatment. As the patient was vomiting, the doctors who were incharge diagnosed as "Pulmonary Embolism" and advised the son and husband of the patient to shift the patient to Basaveshwara Teaching and General Hospital, Gulbarga for Institution Management and Intensive Care and, accordingly, the patient was shifted to the above said Hospital at about 7.45 p.m. on 9.11.2001.

FROM the averments made in the version it is seen that the O.P. did not admit the negligence, if any, on his part either in the matter of surgery or in the treatment provided to the patient. Both the parties have filed affidavits by way of evidence in support of their case. They were also subjected to cross-examination. Both the parties have also filed documents by way of evidence before this Commission.

THE only question that arises for consideration is: Whether the complainant proves the negligence on the part of the O.P. in the matter of treatment provided to the patient? According to the Complainant, the O.P. had left for Hyderabad without making any arrangements to look after the patient on 8.11.2001. Even according to the complainant, the surgery went on well for about 45 minutes without any complications. From this it is seen that so far as the surgery conducted by the O.P. is concerned, there is no negligence. Exhibit ''C-9'' produced by the complainant, which is the Progress Sheet maintained by the Hospital of the O.P., discloses that there was no complaint whatsoever by the patient till the O.P. left for Hyderabad in the evening of 8.11.2001. The said Exhibit also discloses that on 9.11.2001 at about 12.20 p.m., the patient was made to walk and she passed urine. On that day at about 4.00 p.m., the patient vomited. At about 2.25 p.m., Dr. Arunkumar Badasheshi attended the patient. On the very same day, around 7.45 p.m., the patient was shifted to Basaveshwara Teaching and General Hospital. So far as the said Hospital is concerned, the O.P. cannot have any control over the patient as she was admitted to the said Hospital as a patient of some other Doctor. Therefore, the O.P. is not responsible for any "Deficiency in Service" when the patient was in the Basaveshwara Teaching and General Hospital at Gulbarga or Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad. Even from the evidence and the cross-examination, we do not find that any negligence has been established as against the O.P. From the evidence of the complainant considered with the evidence of the O.P. we find no negligence on the part of the O.P. either in the matter of surgery or providing treatment to the patient. According to the complainant when the O.P. left Gulbarga for Hyderabad, he had not made any arrangement to look after the patient. From the Hospital records produced by the complainant we find that the patient had no complaints of any discomfort till about 4 O''clock on 9.11.2001. On 9.11.2001 at about 12.20 p.m. the patient was made to walk and she passed urine. The complaint of uncomfortableness of the patient started only around 4.00 p.m. on 9.11.2001 when the patient was found vomiting. Immediately around 4.25 p.m. Dr. Arunkumar Badasheshi attended the patient and ultimately she was shifted to Basaveshwara Teaching and General Hospital. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the complainant has not proved any medical negligence as against the O.P. From the records of the Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad we find that the complainant died due to cardiac arrest after the removal of puss. From this fact also it is seen that the operation conducted by the O.P. has no nexus with the death of the patient. In order to establish that the death of the patient was the consequence of negligence act of the O.P. no evidence has been produced by the complainant. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The complaint is dismissed. (2) Parties to bear their costs. Complaint dismissed.