M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite parties 2 and 3 are the appellants.
(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal: The complainant / 1st respondent, having stomach pain, approached the 1st opposite party, who is working in the 2nd opposite party hospital, which is managed and controlled by the 3rd opposite party on 31.3.2004, for treatment, paying consideration. After examination, the 1st opposite party suggested an operation for removal of uterus, for a permanent cure, accepted by the complainant, resulting admission in the hospital on 3.5.2004, followed by surgery on 5.5.2004, in which uterus was removed.
(3.) After the operation, since it was defective, the complainant suffered continuous leakage of urine, which was reported to the 1st opposite party on 2.6.2004, who suggested another operation, accepted by the complainant, on which basis, the complainant was operated by the 1st opposite party on 23.8.2004, in order to rectify the defective operation performed on 5.5.2004. Even after the said operation, though assurance was given, leakage of urine does not stop, causing severe problems, mental agony, preventing the complainant, from attending even the day to day household work, thereby treating the complainant very badly, not bestowing proper care expected, from a prudent doctor. In view of the negligence committed by the 1st opposite party, claiming damage against all the opposite parties, notice was issued, reply received, as if it is an admitted complication, which is not correct. Only because of the negligent act, as well as deficiency in service committed by the 1st opposite party, for which opposite parties 2 and 3 are responsible, complainant suffered to the extent of Rs.100000/-, which is liable to be paid by all the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.;