LAWS(NCD)-2008-5-85

VEENA BATRA Vs. RAM LAL KUNDAN LAL

Decided On May 13, 2008
VEENA BATRA Appellant
V/S
RAM LAL KUNDAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has arisen from the death of Sh. Narinder Batra within one and a half hours of the operation known as "fibular grafting and decompression of femoral head" for the problem of hip joint pain (condition of necrosis of the femoral head ). Complainants are the LRs of the deceased and have claimed compensation of Rs.19,50,000 for the loss which complainants have suffered due to untimely death of Sh. Narinder Batra.

(2.) Deceased Sh. Narinder Batra, 33 years old, was an employee of the State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi, drawing a salary of Rs.10,908 p. m. He was suffering from hip-joint pain and was under treatment of OP No.2, Dr. S. P. Mandal, at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as outdoor patient. Dr. Mandal advised Mr. Batra surgery of the hip-joint. He also suggested to him to undergo the surgery at Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital, OP No.1, where it would be less costly than at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He was also assured that OP No.1 hospital would provide better services at cheaper rate than Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. On these assurances, the complainant No.1, wife of the deceased, agreed to have the surgery of her husband at OP No.1 hospital. According to the complainants, the deceased was lured by OP No.2 to have the surgery at OP No.1 hospital instead of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for his own financial gain.

(3.) The deceased, Mr. Batra was admitted to OP No.1 hospital at 1.00 p. m. on 31.1.1999 under the care of OP No.2, Dr. Mandal and surgery was fixed for 1.2.1999. There was a meagre checkup of the patient on 31.1.1999, though he had a medical history of high blood pressure. On 1.2.1999, the patient was taken to the operation theatre at about 9.00 a. m. where the anaesthetist examined him and found that blood pressure of the patient was high and he suggested consultation with a physician. However, OP No.2 did not pay heed to this advice and wanted to proceed with the procedure. Thus, according to the complainants, anaesthesia was administered to the patient without getting him declared fit by a physician and OP No.2 carried out the surgery.