Decided on November 09,2010

Noushad Rahman Appellant
City Hospital And Diagnostic Centre Respondents


- (1.)THE appellant in Appeal 998/03 is the complainant in OP 301/01 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram and the appellant in Appeal 8/04 is the 1st opposite party hospital. The opposite parties are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 towards cost.
(2.)THE case of the complainant/appellant then aged 9 years represented by his father is as follows:
The father of the complainant on 24.5.2001 took his two minor sons including the complainant to the 1st opposite party hospital for performing circumcision. The procedure was done by the 2nd opposite party doctor. Subsequent to circumcision after about half an hour the complainant had severe pain on the organ and inability to discharge urine. He was taken to the hospital of the opposite party on the same day in the night. The 2nd opposite party removed the urine using a tube and dressed the area and sent back. On the next day, it was found that there are burn marks over the umbilicus and leg. He was taken to the 1st opposite party hospital and at the instance of the 2nd opposite party doctor; the complainant was taken to Tirur Nursing Home. The doctor at Tirur nursing home referred the complainant to National Hospital, Kozhikkode. The petitioner was admitted at National Hospital, Kozhikkode and the Pediatrician Dr.Varma advised that plastic surgery would have to be performed at the genital organ and advised to take him to the Medical College Hospital or to some other hospital. The complainant was taken to Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. A reference letter was given which would show that the burning and swelling was on account of electric cauterization done at the 1st opposite party hospital. On 2.6.2001 he was admitted at CMC Vellore. He underwent skin drafting, taking the skin from the left thigh. The genital organ was reduced to half in size. He has also to apply some local aesthetic ointment and use a tube that has to be inserted for expelling urine. He could not attend classes. He still has to use the tube, etc. for removing urine. It is alleged that the entire consequences ensued was on account of the negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party doctor. He had to spend about Rs. 40,000 for treatment at Vellore. He had also to spend amounts for travel, accommodation, etc. He has sought for a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation and Rs. 25,000 towards loss of one year of schooling. He has sought for Rs.3.6. lakh of the disability and altogether a sum of Rs. 5. lakh.

(3.)THE opposite parties have filed a joint version contending that there is no negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party. It is pointed out that the complainant was having phemosis and the same was informed to the parties before circumcision. It is submitted that local anaesthesia was given using 2% plain Xylocaine after test dose. Surgery was done under all aseptic precautions. There was excessive bleeding at the site of circumcision which could not be controlled. The bleeding was stopped by using electric cautery. Antibiotics and anti inflammatory drugs and TT was administered. It is stated that at 8 p.m. the complainant was brought to the hospital with complaints of pain while passing the urine. On examination discolouration and oedema over the penis was noted. There was no injury to the shaft or the glans of penis. He was advised to be taken a pediatric surgeon, Dr.Nasir of Tirur Nursing home. On the next day the complainant was again brought and discolouration and oedema over the penis with signs of necrosis of the skin was noted. Dr.Nasir referred him to Dr. Karthikeya Varma, renowned pediatric surgeon. It is denied that there was skin burn over the penis or burns and swelling over the umbilicus or the right lower limb. It is known that the complainant was taken to CMC, Vellore on their own accord in spite of the fact that Dr. Varma was the Professor and Head of Department of Pediatric Surgery at MedicalCollege, Calicut. It is denied that the complications arose was on account of the surgery done by the 2nd opposite party. It is contended that the outcome of any treatment would depend upon a variety of factors such as the existence of other diseases, immunological status of the individual, sensitivity of the individual to the drugs, etc. It is also contended that every surgical procedure even if minor in nature involves certain inherent reasons.
The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. P1 to P8 series.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.