SONI HOSPITAL Vs. ARUN BALAKRISHNAN IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the learned Single Judge made in C.S.No.1345 of 1991 awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.3,35,000/- together with interest.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs, who are the respondents herein, is as follows; (a) THE first plaintiff is the husband of the second plaintiff. She was admitted in the first defendant hospital on 28.9.1989, for removal of simple ovarian cyst. She was under the care, advice and treatment of the second defendant. THE operation was conducted by the second defendant who was duly assisted by the third defendant, on 29.9.1989. During the process of operation, the second defendant came out of the operation theatre and told the first plaintiff that her uterus should be removed immediately to avoid chances of any more surgery in future. He protested to it saying that the consent of his wife should be obtained for removal of uterus. THE second defendant pleaded inability to obtain consent as she was under anesthesia, but stated that removal of uterus was imminent and necessary. In such compulsive circumstances, he had no other alternative than to leave it to the discretion and decision of the second defendant. After the operation, the second defendant told him that his wife should not be informed about the removal of the uterus from her body as it might adversely affect her recovery and might give her a mental shock. She was discharged on 6.10.1989. After discharge, she was under the treatment of the second defendant. But, she did not become normal, but resulted in severe stomach ache. She was referred to a general physician for 'Colic Pain' and indigestion by the second defendant as in her opinion, she had no gynecological problem. (b) THE first plaintiff put his wife under the care, advice and treatment of Dr. Galundiya at Jaipur. As she did not improve, the said Doctor referred her to Dr. S.S. Thambi of Santokhba Durlabhji Medical Hospital at Jaipur. THE Doctor suspected intestinal obstruction due to post operative adhesions and advised that she may have to undergo another operation to find out the cause for decline in her health. She was bed-ridden for a long time. THE first plaintiff consulted Dr. Junejo of City Nursing Home at Jaipur and then, the Government Ayurvedic College in Bhrampuri, which also did not yield the desired results. THEy decided to move to Madras. (c) On 26.8.1990, the second plaintiff along with her children flew to Madras. She was admitted in Rakhee Nursing Home at Madras. Despite the efforts of Doctors there, her anemic condition did not improve. THEn, she was shifted to City Tower Hospital at Madras and under the care, advice and treatment of Dr. S. Varadarajan. THE X-rays and scans did not reveal anything since the foreign material in her body was then covered with intestine and puss. THE barium test X-ray revealed enlargement of her intestine. Abscess cavity surrounded by the attachments of intestine was found. THErefore, Dr.Varadarajan advised her to go in for an immediate surgery. Accordingly, a surgery was performed by him on 11.9.1990, when it was discovered that an abdominal pad measuring 12 inches x 12 inches was lying inside her body in the junction of small and large intestines. THE same was removed, and it found to contain a label reading "SONI HOSPITAL". Thus, the defendants 2 and 3 have been grossly negligent in conducting operation on her. THE second defendant deliberately avoided such diagnostic measures out of fear of exposure. THE first defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of defendants 2 and 3. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the loss caused to the plaintiffs. (d) Regarding loss on account of the acts of negligence on the part of the defendants 2 and 3, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest to the plaintiffs forthwith. On account of the unwarranted removal of uterus, she has been permanently disabled from further procreatory process, and the first plaintiff is equally deprived of happiness of further procreation. Thus, they valued such invaluable losses caused by the defendants, at Rs.5,00,000/-. Regarding the loss on account of business prospects to the first plaintiff, they estimated the same at Rs.15,00,000/- Hence, the suit.

(3.) THE following points would arise for determination in this appeal: (a) Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to try the suit" (b) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation as awarded" (c) Whether the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside for the reasons now urged by the appellants' side"