Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

          3.      The second opposite party could not be served with notice.  It was reported by the postal authority that intimation was given to the second opposite party regarding the postal articles addressed to the second opposite party from the CDRF, Pathanamthitta.  Thus, the second opposite party remained absent.  The Forum below proceeded with the complaint in OP No. 243/2000 without the junction of the second opposite party Dr. P.V. George.

          4.      Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and a witness on the side of the complainant was examined as PW2 (Dr. K.T Sebastian) who subsequently treated the complainant at General Hospital Pathanamthitta.  Exts. P1 to P7 documents were also produced and marked on the side of the complainant.  From the side of the first opposite party, Dr. Thomas Philip was examined as DW1.  Ext.R1 medical records produced from the side of the first opposite party was also marked.  The relevant entries in R1 medical records were marked as Exts. R1(a), R1(b) and R1(c).  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 11th August 2004 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with treatment expenses of Rs. 12,000/- and other expenses of Rs. 5,000/- with cost of Rs. 3,000/-.  The complainant was also awarded interest from the date of complaint.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 were made jointly and severally liable to pay the decreed amounts to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the first opposite party Manager/Director Marthoma Medical Mission Centre, Ranni.

          5.      During the pendency of the present appeal, the second respondent (second opposite party in OP No. 243/2000) died and his legal representative has been impleaded as additional 3rd respondent by virtue of the order dated 25-11-2009 passed in IA 412/2009.  Notice was served on the additional 3rd respondent; but she remained absent.

          6.      We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/first opposite party and the first respondent/complainant.  The Counsel for the appellant/first opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He much relied on the testimony of PW2 and argued for the position that there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party Dr. P.V. George MS, who conducted surgery on the first respondent/complainant on 08-01-2000 at the first opposite party hospital. He also relied on R1 medical records produced from the side of the first opposite party hospital and submitted that there is no evidence available on record to prove the alleged medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to dismiss the complaint in OP No. 243/2000.  On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent/complainant supported the impugned order dated 11-08-2004 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP No. 243/2000.  He also relied on the testimony of PW2, the doctor who conducted the second surgery on the first respondent/complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta and argued for the position that the first surgery conducted by the second opposite party at the first opposite party hospital was a failure and that the second surgery was done only because of the medical negligence on the part of the second opposite party doctor in doing the first surgery at the first opposite party hospital.  He also submitted argument note in support of his oral submissions.  Thus, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

10.    Ext.R1 is the medical records produced from the first opposite party hospital with respect to the treatment of the complainant at first opposite party hospital from 08-01-2000 till her discharge from the first opposite party hospital on 14-01-2000.  Ext.R1 medical records would show that the complainant was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on 08-01-2000 and she was discharged on 14-01-2000.  It would also show that the complainant was discharged for further treatment at the Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  The entries in R1 medical records would also show that the patient (complainant) was discharged at request at 12 noon on 14-01-2000 and referred to Pathanamthitta General Hospital.  At the time of discharge, it is also recorded, the patient has acute gastritis.  It is also recorded that the patient refused rhylestube and aspiration.  The entries in R1 medical records would further show that on surgery it was found that peritoneum full of pus; intestine near ileocaecal junction ruptured; appendix not seen - intestine repaired - drain + ....................

15.    A close study of the testimony of PW2 Dr. Sebastian would make it clear that there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of second opposite party Dr. P.V. Gorge, Surgeon who conducted the first surgery on the complainant.  It is to be noted that PW2 Dr. K.T. Sebastian had the opportunity to conduct a second surgery on the complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  It is further to be noted that the complainant was referred from the first opposite party hospital for further treatment at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  The complainant was referred to General Hospital, Pathanamthitta at the request of the complainant.  The complainant was operated by PW2 on 30-10-2000.  Ext.P7 is the discharge card issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta with respect to the treatment of the complainant at that hospital.  It would show that the complainant was admitted in General Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 28-09-2000 and discharged on 30-10-2000.  It would further show that she was treated at that hospital for incisional hernia on right side and ovarian cyst left side.  It would also show that during the said surgery PW2 had also removed appendix as the patient had appendicitis on an earlier occasion.  It is also recorded in P7 discharge card that the patient (complainant) was opened up on earlier occasion for appendicectomy, locating appendix failed.  P7 discharge card would also show that PW2 Dr. Sebastian had done appendicectomy, ovarian cyst was removed and incisional hernia was repaired.  There is nothing indicative of medical negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party doctor in doing the first surgery.