Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. In his written arguments the counsel for the opposite parties stated that the complainants had fraudulently mentioned the monthly income of the patient as Rs.4000 while taking treatment whereas while claiming compensation the income is stated to be RS.20338 per month. The complaint is not maintainable against JIPMER being an institution of national importance providing free treatment to the patient. Cases of medical negligence has to be considered in the light of the guidelines laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Professor Dr.Latha who performed surgery is an expert in the field of gynecology and a highly skilled professional and trained to handle laparoscope and perform surgeries. She has been doing laparoscopy procedure since 1995 and handling classes for undergraduate and postgraduate students. On an average 4 to 5 major laparoscopic procedures are performed in a month. Laparoscopy was performed on the patient on 28 .12.2015 by a team of three doctors headed by the Opposite party no.1 and the other doctors were Dr. Sasirekha who was an associate professor of gynecology and Dr.Nasareen. Opposite party 1 has all the awareness and knowledge of new advanced discoveries and developments in her field. The Opposite party 1 had advised the patient to take the opinion of doctors in surgery so as to ascertain the state of affectation. The victim girl without complying with the advice and direction had straight away come to the first Opposite party for treatment. During laparatomy second surgery it was found that there was perforation on caecum and the damaged portion was removed and necessary procedure was done to set it right. Caecum is on the upper part about 5 to 7 cm above the ovaries and therefore there is no possibility not probability of caecum being injured while performing the laparoscopic surgery. While doing cauterisation using guarded bipolar diathermy probe at the ovaries there is no possibility of causing injury to the caecum and the bipolar diathermy probe is found to be effective in localising the source of bleeding. The patient left the JIPMER hospital on 28.1.2015 against the advice of the doctors. The allegation that JIPMER hospital is lacking in infrastructure and the instruments used in the surgery were not sterilized is denied. The patient was taking treatment at Bangalore, Apollo hospital Chennai. CW.2 Dr. R.Karthikeyan and Dr.Narayan in Puducherry were also treating her. The other doctors and hospitals should also have been impleaded as party to the proceeding. The claim has not been substantiated with proof of any credible documents or medical literature. Evidence of CW.2 and CW.3 do not support the case of the complainants .The complainant ought to have examined any experts in the field or ought to have referred the case to a medical board of experts for their expert opinion. The complainants have failed to prove each and every allegation of negligence. The complainants had insisted on performing laparoscopic cystectomy with a false sense of modesty lest the scars of open surgery should remain on their unmarried daughter and had chosen to do laparoscopic cystectomy.

3. If there was negligence or deficiency, what is the compensation to be given to the complainants?

4. To what other relief the complainants are entitled?

18. Issue No.1.

Whether the complainants are consumers under the CP Act and whether the complaint is maintainable against JIPMER as JIPMER is an institution of National Importance established by an Act of Parliament.

19. The Opposite party No.1 in her reply version and the Learned Counsel for the Opposite parties in his arguments stated that JIPMER was declared an institution of national importance by Parliament by way of Jawaharlal Institute of Post -Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry Act, 2008. JIPMER conducts a number of medical, nursing and paramedical courses. Research is conducted on various disciplines of medicine and public health. As per Section 13

24. Let us analyse the position with regard to JIPMER in the light of the conclusions extracted above.

25. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties JIPMER is established by an Act of parliament and is an institution of national importance and has been established with the objective of providing free treatment to the poor patients in the same manner as are being provided by a medical institute of the Central Government. Counsel for Opposite parties says that the patient or complainants have not made any payment or consideration for the treatment undertaken in JIPMER. The complainants also have not denied it. However the counsel for Opposite parties has not said anything about the charges being collected from other patients.

(S. OUMASANGUERY) MEMBER LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:

CW.1 25.05.2017 Thiru.C.Parthiban (1st Complainant) CW.2 Dr.Karthikeyan CW.3 Dr.Narayanan CW.4 09.11.2022 Thiru.S.Jayanthi (2nd Complainant) LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESSES:

RW.1         29.09.2022         Dr.Latha Chaturvedula
RW.2         12.10.2022         Dr.Sasireskha



LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:

Ex.C1    31.03.1993    Birth certificate of the deceased Sri Raja
                       Rajeshwari issued by Puducherry Municipality.

Ex.C2     22.01.2016   Death certificate of the deceased Sri Raja Rajeswari
                       issued by Oulgaret Municipality.

Ex.C3     02.12.2015   Photocopy of outpatient record of the deceased Sri
                       Raja Rajeswari issued by JIPMER Hospital,
                       Puducherry.

Ex.C4     21.01.2016   Photocopy of admission record of the deceased Sri
                       Raja Rajeswari issued by JIPMER Hospital,
                       Puducherry.

Ex.C5     06.02.2016   Requisition letter given by the first complainant to
                       the Opposite party hospital.

Ex.C6     08.02.2016   Postal acknowledgement card.

Ex.C7     18.02.2016   Copy of RTI application submitted by the
                       complainant to the JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry.

Ex.C8     19.02.2016   Photocopy of reply given by JIPMER Hospital to
                       RTI application submitted by the complainant.

Ex.C9     29.02.2016   Photocopy of reply given by JIPMER Hospital to
                       RTI application submitted by the complainant.

Ex.C10    10.05.2016   Photocopy of letter given by the complainants to
                       the Manager, M/s.Amazon Development Centre,
                       Bangalore.

Ex.C11        --       Pay particulars of the deceased Sri Raja Rajeswari
                       issued by Amazon Development Centre,
                       Bangalore.



Ex.C12   22.01.2016    Photocopy of death report of the deceased Sri Raja
                       Rajeswari issued by JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry.

Ex.C13   30.08.2016    Photocopy of advocate notice issued by the
                       complainants to the opposite parties.

Ex.C14       --        Postal acknowledgement card addressed to the first
                       opposite party no.1.

Ex.C15       --        Postal acknowledgement card addressed to the first
                       opposite party no.2.

Ex.C16       --        Postal acknowledgement card addressed to Her
                       Excellency Lt. Governor of Union Territory of
                       Puducherry.

Ex.C17       --        Postal acknowledgement card addressed to the
                       Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry.

Ex.C18   07.11.2016    Reply notice given by the JIPMER Hospital,
                       Puducherry.

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY EXHIBITS :

Ex.R1 14.09.2022      Photocopy of Medical records of the deceased Sri Raja
                      Rajeswari issued by JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry.

Ex.R2       --        Photocopy of the inpatient records of the deceased Sri