AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs.9,87,087/- with interest thereon from the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 is a Kamakshi Hospital, Mysore; opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 are doctors - opposite party No. 4 Dr. Kamat is the Administrator of the said Hospital; Opposite party No. 2-a Surgeon who had conducted hernia operation on the late Rama Rao - the complainant; opposite party No. 3 is Dr. Chandrasekhar who administered anaesthesia to Mr. Rama Rao while opposite party No. 2 conducted hernia operation on Mr. Rama Rao; opposite party No. 5 is the Orthopaedic Surgeon who conducted operation of the spinal cord on Mr. Rama Rao; opposite party No. 6 is Dr. Radhesh, Radiologist, who had taken C.T. scan of Mr. Rama Rao at Nilgiri Cancer Centre, Mysore. The complainant, Rama Rao, pending enquiry, expired on 22.7.93, his wife Smt. B. Seethamma was brought on record as L.R. of the complainant.
IT is the case of the complainant that opposite party No. 2 examined the complainant at opposite party 1 hospital and diagonised the problem faced by the complainant as hernia problem and advised to undergo operation. The complainant-Rama Rao, was admitted in the hospital of opposite party No. 1 on 1.1.92 and opposite party No. 2 conducted the hernia operation in the said hospital at about 3.0 p.m. on 3.1.92. Opposite party No. 3-Anaesthesist, administered spinal cord anaesthesia to the complainant at the time of the said operation. It is the grievance of the complainant that even after lapse of 12 hours after the operation, the complainant did not regain his senses but when he regained his senses he found that he had lost the senses in his body below the waist. He had suffered a paraplegic condition. The complainant further averred that it was due to the gross negligence on the part of opposite party Nos. 3,4 and 5 that he suffered paraplegic condition.
The complainant was thereafter advised to undergo another operation, as opposite party No. 5 had on examining the complainant opined that there was blood clot in the spinal cord so opposite party No. 5 conducted the operation on 7.1.92. Even that operation did not relieve the complainant of that paraplegic condition. The second operation on 7.1.92 was done by opposite party No. 5 after the C.T. scan was taken by opposite party No. 6.
THE complainant averred that his paraplegic condition was the result of gross negligence on the part of opposite party Nos. 3,4 and 5. THE complainant on the basis of these averments sought compensation from the opposite parties in a sum of Rs. 9,87,087/- with interest thereon on various counts. The opposite parties filed their version, denied that there was any negligence on their part in treating the patient - the complainant. The opposite parties averred that the hernia operation conducted on 3.1.92 was in no way concerned with the paraplegic condition which the complainant suffered subsequently. The opposite parties, after the hernia operation conducted on 3.1.92, had advised the complainant not to sit up and make any exertion and even for passing stools he was advised to take the assistance of nursing staff but against the said advise the complainant on 4.1.92 exerted himself for passing bowel which resulted in jerk leading to the development of paraplegia.
THE opposite parties further averred that the spinal anaesthesia administered did not have any effect on the entire body, it was only on the portion of the body which was operated and even that portion affected with anaesthesia was cleared within few hours after the operation. THE complainant was fully conscious throughout the operation and even after the operation. THE opposite parties, on the basis of these averments, submitted that there was no negligence on their part in giving treatment to the complainant. THE opposite parties, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry, the wife of the complainant was examined as CW 1 and got Ex. C 1 to C 65 marked in evidence. The opposite parties 2,4,3,6 and 5 were examined as R.Ws. 1 to 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the material on record.
THE undisputed facts are that the complainant late Rama Rao was operated for hernia on 3.1.92 in opposite party No. 1 hospital. It was opposite party No. 3-Dr. Chandrasekhar, who administered spinal anaesthesia at the time of the operation. As referred above, it was hernia operation. CW 1 has admitted that 4th opposite party-Dr. Kamat had not treated her husband. As far as 6th O.P. is concerned, he had only taken C.T. scan at Nilgiri Cancer Centre, Mysore. Opposite party No. 5-Dr. Hedge hand done the spinal operation on 7.1.92 on the complainant.
THE complainant has in the complaint expressed the grievance against the opposite parties about the treatment given to him, at para 10 of the complaint, as under: "10. THE petitioner submits that the responents 3,4 and 5 in the respondent hospital have experimented on the petitioner and have by their callous negligence aggravated the problems of the petitioner to a paraplegic condition."
This is the main grievance made by the complainant against the opposite parties. THE wife of the complainant C.W. 1, in her evidence, had not made any specific grievance about the deficiency in service against any of the opposite parties. She has, on the other hand, stated in her evidence that her husband had not told anything about the operation to her. THE complainant in the cross- examination of RW 1 - the Surgeon who conducted hernia operation, has suggested, thus: "It is not true to suggest that anaesthesia was not administered as normally it was to be done and why because the complainant did suffer with this problem. It is not true to suggest that the doctor who administered the anaesthesia was experimenting with the patient. ... It is also not true to suggest that hernia operation was not properly done and so the patient did suffer with the said problem. ...... It is not true to suggest that I did not notice that the anaesthesia was administered between T. 11 and T. 12."
As referred above this was not the case of the complainant in the complaint that anaesthesia was not administered as normally it was to be done and that hernia operation was not properly done and so the patient did suffer with the said problem of paraplegia. It was not the case of the complainant that anaesthesia was administered between T. 11 and T. 12.
Rw-2 is the doctor who administered the anaesthesia. R.W. 9 in the cross-examination, has stated, thus: "The anaesthesia was administered through the spinal canal and not through the cord as suggested. The anaesthesia was administered L. 3-4 space: we do not administer spinal anaesthesia at any place other than L. 3-4 space. We do not administer anaesthesia at any place because there are chances of injuring the cord. It is not true to suggest that because of administering anaesthesia at a wrong place the patient suffered paraplegia."
THE complainant did not even suggest this witness that anaesthesia was administered at T. 11 and T. 12 place. R.W 5 is Dr. Hegde, Orthopaedic surgeon, who conducted the spinal operation on 7.1.92. THE complainant, in the cross-examination of this witness suggested, thus: "It is not true to suggest that the second surgery aggravated the agony." THEse circumstances would go to show that the complainant tried to make out a different case in the cross-examination of this witness. As referred above, the complainant had made a general grievance that opposite party Nos. 3,4 and 5, by their callous negligence aggravated the problem of the petitioner to a paraplegic condition. THE material placed on record by the complainant to prove this grievance of the complainant, as referred above, is completely insufficient. The opposite parties, as referred above, have averred that unfortunately the complainant acted against the advise given to him by sitting and exerting himself without the assistance of the staff of the hospital. That is the evidence given by R.W. 1 and R.W. 3. C.W.-1, has in her evidence at paras 56, 57 and 58, stated thus: "56. It is true to suggest that the doctor (second respondent) had advised us to avail of the service of the hospital staff for my husband to pass urine and stools. 57. It is not true to suggest that we had made arrangements by ourselves to attend to my husband with regard to above requirements. 58. I do not know whether my husband had strained himself to pass stools and urine by applying pressure."
These circumstances would go to show that late Rama Rao, unfortunately, on the very next day of hernia operation suffered paraplegia, that is, paralysis of both lower limbs and inability to move the lower limbs. It commonly occurs in diseases of spinal cord.
R.W. 5, Dr. Hegde, who operated the spinal cord on 7.1.92 found the blood clot in the spinal cord and damage and so he closed the wound and informed the complainant that there was no chance of recovery. These facts and circumstances, referred above, would go to show that the complainant failed to establish the fact that paraplegia suffered by the complainant was the result of either hernia operation or the deficiency in the treatment of the complainant by the opposite parties. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the complainant failed to establish the fact that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by their negligence in giving treatment to the complainant. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.