Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The complainant was treated by the 2nd opposite party, and as per his advise he was operated, abdomen was opened from the left side, and a small lump of alleged tumour, measuring about 10 c.m., was removed. However, the complainant developed a bulge in the stomach, which was reported to be due to gastric problem. Despite this problem, the 2nd opposite party, discharged the complainant on 3.11.1996.

4. The complainant had no improvement, and acute pain prolonged in his lower abdomen, for which he was admitted as an inpatient, for the 2nd time, as per the advise of the 2nd opposite party, in the 1st opposite party hospital on 16.11.1996, for further treatment. At that time, the complainant was informed that intestinal infection, due to accumulation of fecal material, was the cause for the acute pain, which could be rectified by another surgery. Thus getting consent, a 2nd surgery was performed, but there was no improvement. The 2nd opposite party, even thereafter conducted three operations, within the span of 10 days, and still the condition of the complainant did not improve. At this stage, the 2nd opposite party suggested 6th operation, thereby creating suspicion about the efficiency of the treatment, given by the 2nd opposite party. Even without giving any kind of postoperative care, with opened abdomen, the complainant was discharged, and thereafter he was admitted at Sri Ramana Surgical Clinic at Venkat Narayana Road, T.Nagar, for further treatment with Doctor Rangabashyam, who opined, that the complainant was in a precarious and critical condition.

15. POINT NO.1 AND 2:

Mr. Karibeeran (deceased) herein after called patient, who was working as a Branch Manager, at Shalamedu Branch, in UBI, drawing a handsome salary, in those days, had some health problem, in the month of October 1996, and for checkup, he approached the 1st opposite party hospital, where he was treated by the 2nd opposite party, as consultant. Clinical examination, revealed that the patient was suffering from abdominal pain, and for further treatment, he was admitted in the hospital on 17.10.96. After taking necessary test, analyzing the test report, having endoscopic examination of the stomach, it was noticed that large intestine was normal, thus excluding any bleeding problem in them, thereby taking next step, it was found out that there was a tumor in the left lower abdomen, probably in the small intestine, for which operation was performed on 24.10.96, preceded by laparoscopic. After the removal of tumor in the small intestine, joining the intestine as prescribed, treating the patient, taking care, he was discharged on 3.11.96. The above facts are not in dispute.

17. The 2nd opposite party, after 2nd surgery, diagnosed the problem of the complainant as colitis, with perforation of the intestine, that means, inflammation of the large intestine, which should have occurred due to infection.

Admittedly when the complainant had come to the opposite parties, for treatment, he had no problem in the large intestine, which is also admitted by the 2nd opposite party, in paragraph 7 of the written version, which reads endoscopic examination of the stomach, and large intestine was normal. Thus excluding, any bleeding problem, however even after the removal of the tumor, which was said to be cause for bleeding and pain, perforation in the bowel occurred, necessitating an emergency surgery, on 28.11.96. Once again, on the same day, i.e on 28.11.96, at 8.50 p.m, the patient had peritoneal infection and inflammation of part of the colon, as well a hole of about 5 mm, in diameter, in the left of lower part of the abdomen. That was rectified, noting that the previous site of the intestinal union of surgery was intact and healthy. The 3rd and 4th operation also failed to give the desired effort, as expected by the patient, from the expert /specialist viz. the 2nd opposite party, even as claimed by him elaborately, in the written version. In the meantime, pus accumulated, causing further problem also.

31. On 24.11.96, when the 2nd opposite party opened the abdomen, he had noticed two perforations, that was also not completely cured, causing further perforation, and for all these continuous problem in the larger intestine, the laparoscopic injury must be the cause, that should be construed as medical negligence, and deficiency in service. In this context we have to see, how the 2nd opposite party diagnosed the problem, and what was the, condition of the patient when he left the 2nd opposite party, to Sri Ramana Surgical Clinic.