A RAVI Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainants wife Shanthi was admitted in the Subam Nursing Home of the 1st opposite party Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Rani on 12,8.1992 for delivery. On 13.8.1992 she gave birth to a child. According to the complainant, the 1st opposite party had been advising the complainants wife on several occasions to undergo family planning operation to which the complainant and his wife agreed. The 1st opposite party said that the family planning operation could not be done in that Nursing Home but had undertaken to arrange for the same in Anand Clinic of the 2nd opposite party Dr. (MrsJ) Niraimadi Diwakaran which was located near to the Subam Nursing Home. The complainants wife was discharged from Subam Nursing Home after he paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - to the 1st opposite party which amount was to cover the fees for delivery and advance for the family planning operation. The balance was to be paid after the operation. The complainants wife was admitted in Anand Clinic. There, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 250/ - and the complainants wife was assigned a room. The complainants wife was in a very good health condition and she was not suffering from any ailment. The 1st, 2nd opposite parries and the 3rd opposite party Dr. (Mrs.) Adhilakshmi were inside the operation theatre during the operation, but there was no Anaesthetist in the operation theatre. The complainants wife was taken inside the theatre and 15 minutes after, the 1st opposite party opened the operation theatre doors and rushed to phone to her husband to ask him to bring Dr. Shanthinathan, an Anaesthetist. The 3rd opposite party Doctor followed by the 1st opposite party Doctor came out of the theatre and even without washing her hands she got into her car and left the clinic in a hurry. Within a few minutes after the departure of the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite partys husband brought Dr. Shanthinathan to the theatre. Simultaneously the 2nd opposite party came out and asked the complainant to bring a car or a van immediately. Minutes after Dr. Shanthinathan entered the theatre, he came out. He recognised Shanthis father -in -law and signalled with his hands that all was over. Soon after that, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties came out of the theatre with the complainants wife in a stretcher and handed over the patient in the stretcher to the complainant. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties did not even whisper a word to anyone about the state of Shanthi when she was handed over. Under the impression that Shanthi was in a serious condition, the complainant took her in a van to Avvai Janaki Hospital where, even before she was taken in, the hospital Doctor came and on examination, pronounced her to be dead. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties, when they handed over Shanthi to the complainant, did not utter even a word as to what was the cause of the death of Shanthi. Later, the complainant came to know from the Hospital staff that Shanthi had been administered local anaesthesia and midway through the operation the effect of the anaesthesia had worn off and Shanthi had sat up and was screaming with pain; the Doctors had administered chloroform and Shanthi was immediately knocked out of consciousness; and it was only after that the 1st opposite party rushed to ring up Dr. Shanthinathan. It was only on 19.8.1992 the 2nd opposite party had reported the death to the Health Inspector concerned that the death was due to cardiac failure. The statement of the 2nd opposite party was totally false. The complainants wife died only due to the joint negligence of the opposite parties in the operation theatre. The complainant gave a notice to the opposite parties for payment of compensation, but in vain. On these allegations the complaint has been filed.

(2.) IN the written version filed by the 1st opposite party, it is contended that she never said that Shanthi should undergo family planning operation nor did she undertake to arrange for it in Anand Clinic. On 14.8.1992 the mother of Shanthi met this opposite party and told her that the family planning operation had been fixed at 8.30 a.m. on 15.8.1992 at Anand Clinic run by the 2nd opposite party and that operation would be done by a Senior Surgeon Dr. (Mrs.) Adhilakshmi the 3rd opposite party with Dr. Shanthinathan, Anaesthetist. She requested this opposite party to be present at the time of operation since her daughter had high confidence and regard to this opposite party. Since she was her patient for a long time and to give her mental satisfaction this opposite party agreed to be present. On the next day when she went to the operation theatre, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were present. The 3rd opposite party Dr. Adhilakshmi performed the operation under local anaesthesia. Then Dr. Adhilakshmi first took out one fallopian tube and after cutting it, made necessary knots and put it inside. While Dr. Adhilakshmi tried to take the other fallopian tube, the patient developed pain and hence Dr. Adhilakshmi stopped further progress and called for the Anaesthetist Dr. Shanthinathan. Within a few minutes Dr. Shanthinathan was brought. Only after analysing the condition of the patient, they opted for general anaesthesia. Dr. Shanthinathan administered eather and after verifying the condition asked the surgeon to proceed further with the operation. Dr. Adhilakshmi took the second fallopian tube, treated and closed the abdomen. Dr. Shanthinathan tried to arouse the patient, but since there was no proper response Dr. Shanthinathan took efforts for reviving consciousness of the patient. But suddenly Shanthis pulse got deteriorated and the blood pressure fell. Further effort was made by all the Doctors and they tried to resuscitate the patient. But unfortunately, in spite of best efforts and efficient treatment, the patient Shanthi collapsed. Dr. Shanthinathan declared that Shanthi died of cardiac arrest. Suppressing all these truth, the complainant has come forward with the distorted version. As such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE 3rd opposite party would contend that on 15.8.1992 at about 10.00 a.m. she received a phone call from Anand Clinic requesting her to rush to the Clinic to get over a critical situation in a family planning operation. She rushed to the Clinic and reached there at 10.30 a.m. By that time, Dr. Shanthinathan had also arrived there. This opposite party examined the patient and found her condition to be already in a worst state. She expressed her inability to do anything at that stage and so she left the Clinic immediately. She has been unnecessarily implicated in the complaint. This opposite party denies that she performed the operation. This opposite party would submit that nobody from the complainants side approached her. She was in no way responsible for the death of Shanthi. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are trying to shift their responsibilities on this opposite party. This opposite party has suitably answered the notice received from the complainants Advocate. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.