National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sri Ramadevi Super Specialities ... vs P.Rasool Khan & Anr. on 16 May, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.1957 of 2007 (Against order dated 04.05.2007 in F.Appeal No.241/2007 of the State Commission, A.P.) Sri Ramadevi Super Specialties Hospital Petitioner Versus P.Rasool Khan & Anr. Respondents BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Maruthi Rao, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.M.Vijaya Bhaskar, Advocate Pronounced on 16th May, 2011 O R D E R
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by Sri Ramadevi Super Specialties Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in favour of P.Rasool Khan and another (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents).
According to the Respondent, he had been suffering from back pain which got aggravated while walking and he, therefore, approached the Khaleel Nursing Home at Cuddapah on 15.07.2003 for treatment. Since he did not get any relief, he then approached the Petitioner/Hospital at Tirupati where he was admitted on 23.10.2003 and thereafter prescribed medicines for several days. He had to visit the Petitioner/Hospital on three occasions and spent a large sum of money during these visits. On 14.12.2003 a CT scan was also conducted and the Petitioner/doctors advised that he should undergo a surgery. Respondent deposited Rs.20,000/- for this purpose which included pre-surgery tests like blood tests, ECG, X-ray etc. After undergoing surgery conducted by Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at the Petitioner/Hospital, Respondent was discharged on 05.02.2004 but had to get himself admitted again to the Petitioner/Hospital since the pain became even more unbearable. He was prescribed expensive antibiotics for 10 days and again discharged on 23.02.2004.
Respondent noted that despite the operation and the medical treatment, the sutures in the operative area started oozing some pus for which he was again prescribed some medicines and advised to control his diabetes. However, when the leakage continued and the Petitioners/doctors used unparliamentary language and asked him to control his diet, Respondent decided to consult another doctor at Vijaya Healthcare, Chennai where after a detailed check up he was advised to undergo a surgery in the same area. During the surgery on 26.04.2004, it was found that a piece of gauze was present in his body which was responsible for the various complications post-surgery in the Petitioner/Hospital. This foreign object was thereafter removed and the Respondent was discharged on 11.05.2004. Since leaving a foreign object during surgery amounts to medical negligence and deficiency in service, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that Petitioner be directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and suffering, Rs.80,000/- as amount spent on his surgery/treatment at Petitioner/Hospital, Rs.47,000/- as expenses incurred for 2nd surgery at Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai together with 12% per annum.
Petitioners, however, have contended that there was no medical negligence on their part. According to them, Respondent was suffering from hypertension and uncontrolled diabetes and this enhanced the possibility of wound infection and delay in wound healing. In fact, these facts were duly explained to the Respondent before surgery and also written in his consent form which he had duly signed.
During the surgery, doctors also noted that an earlier surgery had also been conducted in the same area and this had resulted in a chronic infected granulation tissue with loculated pus and fibrosis and there was collection of pus in the system. Petitioners have also stated that since the procedure was done through microscopic surgery, the gauze could not have been left in the body during this surgery and was already present during the first surgery.
The District Forum after hearing both parties admitted the complaint by concluding that there was enough evidence that the gauze has been left during the surgery conducted at the Petitioner/Hospital and the statement that they have conducted a microscopic surgery could not be relied upon because Petitioner also stated that they had opened the system and found chronic infection with loculated pus and fibrosis during the surgery which could not have been detected through a microscopic procedure. The District Forum also relied on a number of judgments of the State Commissions as well as of the National Commission wherein it was held that if a foreign object is left behind in the body following a surgery, it is a clear case of medical negligence.
The District Forum directed the Petitioner to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,27,000/- towards medical expenses with interest @ 9% per annum from 23.10.2003 till payment and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation costs within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which also dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved by this, Petitioners have filed this revision petition.
Learned counsel for both parties made their oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner stated that there was no medical negligence on the part of the Petitioners and the gauze was left during an earlier surgery conducted in 2002. He also emphasized the fact that the surgical procedure in the Petitioner/Hospital was conducted by a well- reputed neurosurgeon through microscopic surgery during which a foreign body could not have been left. In fact, the Petitioner/doctor found that the Respondent already had a chronic infection as well as hypertension and severe diabetes and these facts were recorded in the case history and other documents which were in evidence before the fora below.
Counsel for Respondent on the other hand stated that there was no possibility of the gauze having been left during the first surgery because had this been so it would have been clearly visible in the CT scan. The detailed case history of the Respondent prepared by Vijaya Healthcare, Chennai where the third operation took place clearly indicates that the gauze was present and removed during this surgery. These facts were appreciated by the fora below which accepted the Respondents contentions and the present revision petition, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.
We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The fact that the Respondent visited the Petitioner/Hospital with a history of severe back pain is not in dispute nor is it in dispute that a CT scan had been conducted on 14.12.2003 and that thereafter, the Petitioners conducted a surgery on the Respondent on 19.01.2004. If indeed, as contended by the Petitioners, the gauze was present in the system prior to this surgery it would have been clearly visible in the CT scan. The fact that this was not so, itself casts serious doubts on the Petitioners contentions. Secondly, the Petitioners statement that it was not possible to have left behind the gauze during the microscopic surgery is also suspect because it has also been admitted that they opened the previously operated area and detected a chronic infection granulation tissue with loculated pus and fibrosis on the other hand. The case history and the discharge summary issued by Vijaya Healthcare, Chennai where the third surgery took place clearly indicated that a piece of gauze was found during the surgery. Therefore, looking at the sequence of events there can be no doubt that the foreign object had been left behind during the second surgery by the Petitioners. These were also the findings of the fora below on the basis of credible and voluminous evidence produced before it. Leaving behind a foreign object in the body during a surgery amounts to medical negligence and the fora below have quoted a number of rulings of this Commission and other consumer fora in this connection. This issue is also squarely covered by a ruling of the Honble Supreme Court in Achutrao H.Khodwa Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1996 SC 2377. In that case, during an operation conducted on a woman, a mop was left in her abdomen resulting in complications and ultimately the death of the patient. The Honble Supreme Court ruled that they had no hesitation in holding that the patient died due to the negligence of the Respondents because the doctor acted carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner. Respectfully following this judgment in the instant case where the facts are similar to the extent that here also a foreign object was left in the patients body during surgery, we conclude that the Petitioners were guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service. We, therefore, uphold the orders of the fora below in toto. Petitioners are directed to jointly and severally pay the Respondent, Rs.1,25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,27,000/- towards medical expenses with interest @ 9% per annum from 23.10.2003 till payment and Rs.3,000/-
towards litigation costs within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
....
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/