Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.       It was pleaded that subsequent to the surgery, the Patient suffered severe health problems viz. lack of urine sensation; motion sensation;   over-sensitivity to light, sound and smell; unable to sit for more than 30 minutes; unable to walk for more than a few steps, else she would be bed ridden; suffered fits 3-4 times a day; high blood pressure; necessitating heavy intake of 20-25 different kinds of medicines every day. It was stated that the Hospital collected ₹62,000/- towards Hospital charges and professional fees and despite the bad health condition of the patient, she was discharged on 19.10.2003. On account of repeated complications the patient was once again admitted in the Hospital on 10.11.2003 and discharged without any improvement in her health on 20.11.2003. Once again the patient developed fits and become very serious and she was readmitted on 26.11.2003 at 10 p.m. in the night. When the second Complainant contacted the treating Doctor, he was directed to go to Dr. Dayalan, Psychiatrist, who after seeing the patient, recommended her to Dr. Velmurugan, Neurosurgeon, from whom she took treatment till 14.12.2003. On the advice of  Dr. Velmurugan, the patient was admitted in Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, on 15.12.2003 and discharged on 27.12.2003. Dr. Velmurugan advised her to go to the treating Doctor for restoration of normal bowel movements and for curing fits.

4.       It was averred that the patient was under the care of the treating Doctor for two months, yet, there was no improvement in her health condition. It was pleaded that on seeing the second MRI scan report, the treating Doctor admitted that he had committed a grave mistake by not setting right the flesh in the operated area. On 04.06.2004, she was advised to take blood test and urine culture and when she visited the treating Doctor again on 07.06.2004, she was informed that he had left India. Thereafter, the Complainant took the patient to Apollo Hospital, Chennai and consulted Dr. Prithika, Neuro Specialist. After examining all the medical reports and scan reports, she said that surgery done in  Padmini Nursing Home by the treating Doctor  was done very negligently and that the 'S' nerve was cut and the flesh was not properly replaced and hence there is no sensation of passing urine and motion coupled with fits at frequent intervals. It was averred that the treating Doctor did not consult any other specialist regarding the case and did not give any details as to what could be the problem, what the requirements in this case might be, the result and the consequences. The surgery was performed in a negligent manner and the Patient finally died on 31.01.2007. Only on account of the negligence of the treating Doctor, the patient who was in normal health except for back pain ended up with serious complications like loss of sensation, fits at frequent intervals resulting in a lot of suffering and exorbitant expenses, for which the Complainant seeks direction to the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of   ₹20,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss of life and the suffering undergone by the patient.

8.       It was averred that though the Patient's life was saved from cardiac arrest, the temporary loss of blood supply for three minutes to the operated area, made it vulnerable for subsequent infection and further worsening of her symptoms regarding passage of urine, motion and difficulty in standing and walking. Such complications are not unusual in this kind of surgery. It was further averred that the patient was treated by this Opposite Party even earlier as he was the Orthopedic Consultant at Zubeda Hospital. There was no option for the patient except surgery and it was performed only after explaining all the risks. The Patient's orthopaedic problems were present even before the surgery, which worsened, due to failed back syndrome resulting in cardiac arrest and spinal cord infection and hence no negligence can be attributed to the treating Doctor.

"11.  Perusal of Ex. B2 case records would show that the patient Shakila Bano developed cardiac arrest and she was saved by the 2nd opposite party and his team on 10.10.2003. It shows the curiosity (sic) of  the 2nd opposite party in saving the life of the patient. Perusal of Ex. A3 would show that the Shakila Bano was a patient of 2nd opposite party from 1998. Perusal of EX A3 and A4 would show that shakila Banu had orthopedic problem even before surgery. The 2nd opposite party performed the operation negligently she would not have survived up to the year 2007. The 2nd complainant who is the father of the Shakila Banu deposed before this forum on the side of the complainant. When he was cross-examined by the 2nd opposite party, he told that he had knowledge about the medical terms. To prove the 2nd complainant had medical knowledge, no documentary evidence has been produced on the side of the complainant.