SRI UTHRADAM THIRUNAL HOSPITAL (P) LTD Vs. ZEENA UMMAL A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 3.12.2001 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 328 of 1997. The complaint in the aforesaid original petition was filed by the first respondent herein as complainant against the appellant and the second respondent as opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively. The complaint was filed for getting compensation of Rs. 4,65,000 on the ground of medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The case of medical negligence was denied and disputed by the opposite parties. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to certain extent and thereby the first opposite party hospital Sree Utharadam Thirunal Hospital was found negligent. The second opposite party Doctor was exonerated from the liability and thereby the first opposite party (appellant) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 55,000 as general compensation with a cost of Rs. 3,000. The first opposite party has also burdened with the liability to pay future interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum on its failure to pay compensation of Rs. 55,000 within one month. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the first opposite party therein.

(2.) NOTICES of this appeal was served on respondents 1 and 2. But when the matter was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondents 1 and 2. This State Commission was pleased to appoint Adv. Mr. S. Reghu Kumar as amicus curiae and he had done his job in an exemplary manner. It is learned that the first respondent/complainant had preferred the appeal as Appeal No. 376 of 2002 challenging the impugned order passed by the Forum below. But the said appeal heppened to be dismissed for default as the appellant complainant failed to take necessary steps for prosecuting his appeal.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/first opposite party and the learned amicus curiae Adv. Mr. S. Reghukumar. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based upon the grounds urged in the memoradum of the present appeal. He has also pointed out the omission on the part of the Adv. Commissioner who submitted Ext. C2 report. He has also pointed out that the first respondent/complainant failed to prove his case regarding the negligence on the part of the appellant/first opposite party hospital in providing a room with necessary hygienic conditions. Thus, the appellant/first opposite party hospital requested to exonerate the hospital from the liability by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned amicus curiae Adv. Mr. Reghukumar much relied on the admitted fact that the patient Alikunju contracted infection from the first opposite party hospital. He has also relied on Ext. C2 report regarding the unhygienic condition in which the room was maintained by the appellant/first opposite party hospital authority. He has also pointed out the fact regarding the construction work going on in the very same building wherein the patient was admitted after the major surgery (by -pass surgery). He much relied on the authority Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine, Edited by Christopher R.W. Edwards, Iana.D.Boucher, Christopher Haslett, Edwin Chilvers (17th edition) and submitted that the Staphylococcal infection is to be treated as the hospital infection and in hospital the route of transmission is through medical and nursing procedures like Needles, Vetilators and infusion fluid. It is further pointed out that the Staphylococcus is readily spread from clothing to contaminate the dust in which it survives in the dry state for weeks or months and that in hospital, this organism is an important cause of wound infection. Thus, he requested for dismissal of the present appeal.