M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) This complaint aims, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the opposite parties, on the ground of medical inefficiency or medical negligence.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the case, as follows: In the month of May 2001, when the 1st complainant, went to Pattukottai, she had severe abdominal pain, for which she consulted the 2nd opposite party, who is owning the 1st opposite partys nursing home. The 2nd opposite party diagnosed the suffering as Uretero Virginal Fistula and Dysfunctional Termine Bleeding; recommending immediate surgical operation known as LAPROSCOPI SURGERY that would be lesser expensive and easier.
(3.) On the advise of Dr. Neelambal, the 1st complainant, admitted in her nursing home, and she had taken care of her, inclusive of surgery also as suggested by her. Dr. Neelambal, had brought Dr.Ravindran, the 3rd opposite party and both did the surgery on 2.6.2001. The Laproscopic Hysetomy done to the first complainant, for Dysfunctional and Uterine Bleeding the Uretero Virginal Fistula, it appears was not successful. After discharge on 7.6.2001 from the Nursing Home her abdominal pain was not stopped but it increased and in addition, urine started flowing without her control. The complainant would state, that due to some lapses during operation, resulting deficiency in service, the medical negligence on the part of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, the 1st complainant, suffered a lot, again suffering same pain, for which the opposite party should be held responsible, jointly and severally.;