RAJALAKSHMI vs J V HOSPITAL

THE complainant is the appellant herein. The case lies in a very narrow compass. The complainant suffered from knee pain. She was admitted in opposite party No. 1 hospital and operated upon by opposite party No. 2. She was discharged after 15 days. According to her, she was not given any discharge summary. The request for discharge summary was made with advice for another surgery. The persistent knee pain ended in surgery at CM Hospital, Nanganallur which operation revealed the presence of drill bit in the knee. She underwent another surgery at G. H. She was in the hospital for nearly 100 days from 5. 7. 2002 to 26. 11. 2002. She was unable to perform normal household duties. She caused a notice to be issued to the opposite parties which did not evoke any response and she came forward with the complaint.

THE opposite parties resisted the complaint contending that there was no deficiency in service that the pain due to knee injury suffered earlier by her and test showed that it was due to swelling in the lower end of thigh bone. She was advised to undergo biopsy for diagnosis and not for cure under regional anaesthesia. During surgery, drilling was done and bone bit was taken for examination. When the last hole was drilled, the tip of the drill bit was broken and got embedded in the bone substance. She was informed of the presence of the drill bit and told that it was nothing serious. She failed to heed for bone biopsy and the pain in the knee was only cancerous femur bone. There was no deficiency in service. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A9 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B9 were marked.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the discharge summary revealed that the pain was due to the cancerous growth in the knee and not due to the drill bit that there was no deficiency in service that there was nothing to show on record that the opposite parties acted negligently and deliberately by putting the drill bit into the bone that in surgeries which were to be done minutely, these small lapses might occur which could not be termed as negligence. So holding, by order dated 30. 9. 2004, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

THE fact remains that there was a drill bit left behind. According to the opposite parties, while the third hole was being drilled, a piece of the drill bit broke and a piece got embedded in the bone that the complainant was informed about it and she was also asked to report to the opposite parties for having that bit removed that she did not report to them. The District Forum found that because of the embedding of the drill bit, the complainant was in no way affected that in surgeries these small lapses could occur and when the complainant had not suffered any injury, there was no deficiency in service. In our view, the conclusion reached cannot at all be sustained. Unless, the opposite parties had been negligent, the drill bit could not have broken and got embedded. The opposite parties could not disown responsibility for that. The rest cannot be whether anything happened because of the presence of the drill bit in the body of the complainant. It is a foreign body. It is not a proper proposition to say that only when the complainant suffers any problem, the opposite parties would be answerable and not when she had not suffered any problem. It is also inconceivable for how long one had to wait whether what had been embedded would cause any harm or create some problem. We are clearly of the view that there was indeed negligence on the part of the opposite parties in allowing such a thing to happen. The complainant had to approach some other hospital to have the drill bit removed. It will not be proper to say that because of the presence of the drill bit the complainant had not suffered. The very thought that there was a foreign body in her bone might create panic in the patient and she would suffer mental agony. Taking an overall picture, we find that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Now, coming to payment of compensation to the complainant, we feel that an award of Rs. 20,000, i. e. , Rs. 10,000 for the expenses incurred by her for having the drill bit removed and Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony would meet the ends of justice.

CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed; the Order of the District Forum is set aside. There will be a direction to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 to the complainant. The amount shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the same would carry interest @ 9% till payment. No cost. Appeal allowed.