SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

         Complainant filed this consumer complaint  U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986  against opposite parties seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to pay Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the damages and  mental agony  to the complainant due to their negligence and  deficiency in service together with cost of the  proceedings.

Brief facts of this case are that:-

       Due to stomach ache and discomfort  complainant  approached 1^st OP for an expert opinion and treatment as there was left adnexal cyst in her abdomen as per the USG report.  After going through the report  and after his clinical examination the 1^st OP came to the conclusion  that the complainant is having left ovarian cyst and he advised to take ultra sound scan and after going  through the same he decided to remove the left ovarian cyst by conducting a  laparoscopic overiotomy ie, ovarian cystectomy.  Accordingly he conducted the surgery on 22/4/2018 after evaluating the physical  condition  of the complainant.  But after shifting the complainant to the room, she was having severe  fever and abdominal pain.  Even though it was informed to the 1^st OP he did not take it seriously and prescribed certain antibiotics and tablets for subsiding the fever and pain.  Thereafter the complainant was discharged on 26/4/2018 even though the complainant was not feeling well and she has not regained her mental and physical strength, she went to her home on 26/4/2018 with her discomfort only upon the assurance and strength given by the 1^st OP that she will be back to normal soon.   But when the complainant reached home, she struggled due to severe abdominal pain with high fever and she feels weakness also.  Therefore due to the uncontrollable abdominal pain, fever and nausea she  reached to the 1^stOP on the very next day after discharge ,ie on 27/4/2018.  Surprisingly the 1^st OP prescribed only some formal medicines for pain and fever in spite of the  strong symptoms of abdominal infection and post operative complications.  The 1^st OP was not even cared to conduct a detailed  evaluation and clinical examination to find out the reason for the pain and weakness soon after the discharge.  The1st OP was not even  cared to take any abdominal X ray,USG or any ultra sound scan to rule out any post  operative complications. The OP was highly negligent and careless in examining the complainant and assessing the symptoms existed at that time.  The OP was not even cared to put the  complainant at least for one day observation.  Hence the complainant had to return to her home with the same complaints and complication of severe fever, abdominal pain and general weakness.   Soon after reaching the home, her pain and fever and weakness increased and she became very weak and collapsed due to vomiting hence the complainant  had to rush to the near by hospital namely Dhanalakshmi Hospital,Kannur and from there Dr.Jubairyath a senior gynaecologist conducted a clinical examination and evaluated her condition by taking  USG and after diagnosing the abdominal infection referred the complainant to higher centre for managing the post operative complications.  Accordingly the complainant’s relatives took her to Unity hospital Mangalore and they reached there on the very same day 28/4/2018.  From there Dr.Ashfaque Mohammed conducted detailed clinical examination as well as tests and he came to the conclusion that the complainant is suffering from faecal peritonitis in sepsis ie, infection and inflammation in complainant’s abdomen and for the same an emergent exploratory laparotomy was done on the same day.  Thereby the complainant’s abdomen was reopened and abdominal organs was examined  with a objective of obtaining the cause of inflammation in  complainant’s  abdomen which could not be inferred with the help of diagnostic method.  The examinations revealed about the faecal matter leaked into peritoneal cavity of the  complainant’s abdomen which was the cause of abdominal infection.  Moreover it was

revealed by the examination that the cause of infection in complainant’s abdomen was due to incorrect insertion of the laparoscope done by 1^st OP.  The careless and negligent act of the 1^st OP resulted in sigmoid perforation also.  For determining if there was any free floating fluid, peritoneal levage was done as a  result the doctors came to  identify that inflammatory mass was seen in complainant’s sigmoid colon.  Moreover, the doctors for overcoming the high risk created by the negligent act of 1^st OP, left oopherectomy and sigmoidectomy was done.  For resection of sigmoid colon of the complainant  S.S.Junction was stapled by the  doctor.  Finally anastamosis was done and colostomy was covered.  Due to the accumulation of infected fluid in the abdomen, the complainant developed left subphrenic abscess and for collecting the same USG guided pig tail drainage was done by the doctors.  Thereafter the complainant’s state of health progressively improved.  For the  period 24/4/2018 to 23/5/2018 the complainant was admitted  as an impatient at Unity  hospital Mangalore.  The complainant states that if the Ops 1&2  has given proper attention and medical care to the complainant, there will not be any chance or reason for the subsequent surgeries at Mangalore hospital.  The medical negligence from the part of 1^st OP resulted much pain and suffering to the complainant and her family.  Hence this complaint.

  After receiving notices 1^st OP filed written version denied all the allegations of the complainant and stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on his part.  It is submitted that the complainant reported on 22/4/2018 and got admitted to the hospital  and underwent necessary pre-anesthetic check up and investigations and surgery was posted  to 23/4/2018.  The 1^st OP explained the pros and cons of laproscopic ovariotomy and the risk factors involved in laparoscopic surgery including  the chance of bladder and bowel injury and written  informed consent was  taken  before surgery. Under all care and aseptic precautions the 1^st OP conducted  laparoscopic ovariotomy on 23/4/2018 under general anaesthesia.  Intra operatively right ovary was found normal and left ovary adnexal mass 6x6 cm buried behind sigmoid colon.  There were thick adhensions ad adhensions released with due care and left ovariotomy was done.  The patient had complaint of mild fever on 24/4/2018 and subsided with medication.  On 25/4/2018 per abdomen soft and bowel sounds present and on 26/4/2018 the patient was in a stable condition without any complaints and hence discharged on 26/4/2018 without any complaints. On 27/4/2018 the complainant reported to the out patient department in the 2^nd OP hospital with the complaint of fever and abdominal pain with temperature recorded 101.6F and fever subsided after giving paracetamol.  Per abdomen soft and bowel sounds present and there was no history of vomiting or diarrhea.  Blood and urine routine examination was also done.  As fever subsided and felt symptomatically better, the complainant was  reluctant for admission for detailed evaluation and wanted to go home and hence prescribed medicines and advised review.  Thereafter the complainant did not turn up and lost further follow up.    In the surgical management of the complainant the 1^st OP had exercised due skill, expertise and care and there was no negligence or deficiency in service on his part at any point of time in the treatment.  Hence prayed the dismissal of the complaint.

   At the evidence time both parties led their evidence.  In order to substantiate the complainant averments,  complainant filed affidavit evidence and  produced  some documents.  She has been examined as PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A16.  On the side of complainant one more witness Dr.Ashfaque Mohammed, consultant General Surgeon working at Unity Hospital,Mangalore, from where the complainant availed higher treatment, has been examined as PW2.  Two case  records from Unity Hospital pertaining to the treatment of  complainant  as inpatient IP NO.54173 were summoned and marked as Ext.X1 series.  From the side of  OPs 1^st OP Dr.Ajith has also filed affidavit evidence and produced the case record of complainant  from 2^nd OP hospital.  1^st OP was examined as DW1 and marked document as Ext.B1.

   After that the learned counsel of both parties vehemently argued the matter and submitted their written argument notes also.  The learned counsel of 1^st OP submitted citations of Apex court as well as various medical texts for reference.

   We have  carefully examined the entire matter, documents, medical records, citations and also medical text available before us.  It is not disputing the facts regarding surgery being carried out by 1^st OP on 23/4/2018 at 2^nd OP hospital, discharged on 26//7/2018 with an advise to take  the medicine prescribed  and to come on 4/5/2018 for removal of the sutures, on the very next day on 27/4/2018  complainant was taken to 1^st OP with complaint of abdominal pain,fever since yesterday ie 26//7/2018, and chill and rigor associated with fever,further patient was admitted on 28/4/2018  at 1.58 p.m in Dhanalakshmi Hospital,Kannur as IP NO.269835 with complaints of  pain abdomen and vomiting and discharged on the same day referred to higher centre to further management, admitted at Unity Hospital, Mangalore on the same day 28/4/2018 at 21.15 Hrs. with complaint of facial peritonitis in sepsis and conducted exploratory laprotomy  sigmoidectomy on 29/4/2018 and discharged  on 23/5/2018.

   The learned counsel for the OP relying on the decisions of apex court Dr.S.K.Jhuhun wala 2019(2)SCC 282) that the allegations made by the complainant against a doctor must be proved by an expert evidence and it was for the complainant to prove the negligent  act of the doctor in treating the complainant. It is submitted that in this case  the expert examined by the complainant was not asked to give evidence to prove the allegations.  Learned Counsel further submitted that every surgical intervention has its own risk.  That is why the complainant and her husband was well informed before the surgical  procedure and the complainant had knowledge of risk involved in this case.  So that she cannot raise any allegation against the 1^st OP ignoring the consent given by her.  The learned counsel further submitted that the commission ought not to  presume that the allegations in the complaint  are inviolable truth even though they remained unsupported by any evidence.  The learned counsel further submitted that a mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved.  It is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta probenda as  well as the facta probantia Jacob Mathew case (2005 6SCC 1).  Further a doctor is not an insurer, he cannot assure a particular result 2013(3)CPR 60 Ker.  Further medical science has conferred great benefit of mankind, but these benefits are attended by considerable risk.  Every surgical operation is attended by risk.  We cannot take the benefits without taking risk.  Every advance in  technique is also attended by risk.  This was laid down in the judgment in Kusum Sharma’s case(2010(3) SCC 480).

   The learned counsel of OP further submitted various medical text regarding the Advantages and risk of laparoscopic surgery .

   On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that 1^st OP Doctor was very careless both in conducting the surgery and monitoring  and in follow up during  the  post operative day and  finally on 27/4/2018.  The 1^st OP has not even  cared to take an X-ray or USG or Ultra sound scan for evaluating the conditions after his surgery.  According to 1^st OP, he removed the left ovary of the complainant.  But it was  there(Ext.A1) and infected left ovary was compelled to remove by PW2 on 28/4/2018 at Unity Hospital,Mangalore.  The learned counsel of complainant further submitted that “ it is well settled  fact in medical science that if a post operative patient had high temperature between 96.8*F-104*F and the heart  rate if 90/min  and the respiratory rate is 20/min.  There is very chance of inflammation and infection to the patient.  This is called systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome.  A Gynecologist having more than 25 years of experience neglected those symptoms of patient is a clear case of deficiency  in service and medical negligence.  The temperature of the complainant was 101.6*F and her heart rate  was 100/min and her BP was 100/70 and she was having abdominal pain, chill and rigor associated with fever on the very next day of discharge.  Eventhough all these symptoms were noticed , and it is written in Ext.A7 the OP simply gave some medicines and sent the complainant back to home.  They  not even cared to conduct any tests to evaluate her condition and  not even cared to put the patient in observation at least for 1 day is nothing but a clear case of medical negligence.

    1^st OP contended that on 27/4/2018 the complainant reported to the out patient department  in the 2^nd OP hospital with the complaint of fever and abdominal pain with temperature recorded 101.6F and fever subsided after giving paracetamol.  Per abdomen soft ad bowel sounds present and there was no history of vomiting or diarrhea.  Blood and urine routine examination was also done.  As fever subsided and felt symptomatically better the complainant was  reluctant for admission for detailed evaluation and wanted to go home and hence prescribed medicines and advised review.  and hence prescribed medicines and advised review.  Thereafter the complainant did not turn up and lost further follow up.  In the chief affidavit also 1^st OP has stated like that.  But in cross-examination 1^st OP deposed that “  അന്നേ ദിവസം   patient admit  ആകാൻ വിസമ്മതിച്ചു എന്ന് Ext.A7 നോക്കിയാൽ കാണുമോ? ഇല്ല രോഗിക്ക് അന്ന് admit ആകേണ്ട indication ഇല്ലായിരുന്നു.  ആ സമയത്ത്  bowel എഴുതിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. Admission ന്ർറെ കാര്യത്തെപ്പറ്റി patient  ഉും ആയി ഞാൻ discuss ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല ‘’.From the aforesaid statement it is clear that the version of 1^st OP about the said fact is not correct.  Further 1^st OP does not have a case that complainant did not follow other instructions suggested by him but the fact that when the complainant came with complaint of abdominal pain, fever associated with chill and rigor of 101.6*F, 1^st OP having 25 year experience in the relevant field prescribed only some medicines for fever T Dolo 650mg, T.Pantodac 40 mg, T.Mou Clav 625 and FepQnil 650 with an advise  to come for review on 1/5/2018 without evaluating the reason of complaint by conducting

investigations, when the patient came on the very next day of his surgery with post-operative complication.  Here it is to be noted that PW2 the expert doctor deposed that in  page No.1  Doctor ന്ർറെ അടുത്തുവരുന്പോൾ    patient critical   ആയിരുന്നോ ? അതെ Abdominal pain, omitting, fever decreased urine out put, headache, Generalized weakness since 3-4 days.   ആയത് Patient തന്ന history ആണ്.  Further the learned counsel of complainant put a specific question to  PW2  Laproscopic overaian cystectomy നടത്തിയ ഒരു patient , discharge  ചെയ്ത next  day  യിൽ പനിയും abdominal pain  ഉം  ആയി വന്നാൽ  അത് വയറിലുള്ള  infection ന്ർറെ    symptoms ആവാം?  അതെ, chill and  rigor associated with fever   എന്നത് പനികുടിയ അവസ്ഥയാണ്.  അങ്ങനെ വരുന്ന patient നെ   ശരിയായ അവസ്ഥ അറിയുന്നത് observation   നും പരിശോധനകളും ആവശ്യമാണ്.  pantodac  എന്നത് acidity ക്ക് കൊടുക്കുന്ന tablet ആണ്.  Fepanil പനിക്കു കൊടുക്കുന്ന  tablet ആണ്. mouclave antibiotic ആണ്. മേൽപറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്ന   medicines ഒന്നും തന്നെ patient  ന്ർറെ ഞാൻ കണ്ടെത്തിയ അസുഖം മാറുന്നതിന് ഗുണപ്രധമല്ല .  This oral evidence of expert corroborate the evidence shown in the medical record Ext.X1 series.  That is in Ext.A7 dated 27/4/2018 the C/o abdominal pain, Fever, chill and rigor associated with fever since yesterday No h/o vomiting diarrhora without any observation, evaluation  and investigations prescribed the antibiotic and tablets  for fever as mentioned above, for 5 days.  But the condition of the patient on the next day at 1.58 p.m from Ext.A10 was c/o pain abdomen, fever, vomiting, decreased urine output, headache, generalized weakness since 3-4 day.  The above  noted worsening condition of the patient itself reveals that the medicines prescribed  in Ext.A7 is not  sufficient for recovery of the complaint occurred to the  complainant.  

   PW2 stated that Laproscopic ovarian cystoctomy  നടത്തിയ ഒരു patient , discharge  ചെയ്ത next  day  യിൽ പനിയും abdominal pain  ഉം  ആയി വന്നാൽ  അത് വയറിലുള്ള  infection ന്ർറെ    symptoms ആവാം?  അതെ.

   In this contest the evidence given  by PW2  states that sepsis ആകുവാൻ എത്ര ദിവസം ആകും ? Perforation    കഴിഞ്ഞ് 24-28  മണിക്കൂർ, depends upon  patient and it will continue till it is treated is having very important.  PW2 expert further deposed that sepsis  എന്നാൽ severe infection ആണ്.  In page 2 last PW2 has stated that patient    ന്ർറെ അപ്പോഴത്തെ complication ഒഴിവാക്കുന്നതിന് വേണ്ടിയാണ് സർജറി നടത്തിയത്.  അന്നു തന്നെ കണ്ടെത്തിയ complications മരുന്നുകൾ കൊണ്ട് മാത്രം മാറുന്നതല്ല. .     sigmodectomy ചെയ്തില്ലായിരുന്നു എങ്കിൽ patient ന് മരണം സംഭവിക്കുമായിരുന്നു .  Further the  learned counsel of complainant put a question to PW2 that “ If a doctor is conducting a surgery with due care and caution, the post-operative complication can be avoided? It can be minimized depends upon the indication of the surgery.

   During cross-examination the learned counsel of OP put forward a question Laproscopic ovarian cystoctomy  നടത്തിയാൽ 2 ദിവസം കൊണ്ട് patient  നെ discharge ചെയ്യാം(Q)  (Ans) അതെ. ഈ  surgery time ൽ കുടലിന് എന്തെങ്കിലും injury സംഭവിച്ചാൽ 3-5 ദിവസത്തിനകം മനസ്സിലാകും. അങ്ങനെ injury സംഭവിച്ചാൽ patient ന് loose motion  ഉം omitting ഉം ഉണ്ടാകാറില്ലേ ഉണ്ടാകാൻ സാധ്യതയുണ്ട്. But not as a primary symptoms.  Further in page 5 Ext.A7  നോക്കി കഴിഞ്ഞാൽ patient ന് infection ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് definite ആയി പറയുവാൻ സാധിക്കുമോ? പറ്റും. Further PW2 deposed that Ext.A7   നോക്കിയാൽ  ഒരു Bowel injury suspect  ചെയ്യുവാനുള്ള സാധ്യത ഉണ്ടോ? As per Ext.A7 record “ NO”. Further sigmoid colon ൽ   കാണുന്ന inflammatory mass, laproscopic oopherectomy വഴി അല്ല   Bowel injury.  സംഭവിച്ചത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണോ?  അങ്ങനെ പറയാൻ പറ്റില്ല Further PW2 deposed that “Laproscop insert  ചെയ്യുന്പോൾ Bowel injury ഉണ്ടാകുവാൻ സാധ്യതയുണ്ട്.  Ext.A1 ൽ scan report ൽ typical Bowel injury sigmoid colon ന്ർറെ പിന്നിലുള്ള adnexal mass remove ചെയ്യുക എന്നത് ഒരു  major surgery ആണ്. ഇങ്ങനെ ഉള്ള  mass remove ചെയ്തു കഴിഞ്ഞാൽ sigmoid colon ലെ injury വരുവാനുള്ള സാധ്യത ഉണ്ട്. Mass remove ചെയ്യുന്ന സ്ഥലത്ത് പിന്നീട് perforation വരുവാനുള്ള സാധ്യതയുണ്ട്.  ഇപ്രകാരം ഉണ്ടാകുന്ന Bowel injury surgery നടത്തിയ   doctor ടെ  negligence  കൊണ്ടാണ് ഉണ്ടായത് എന്നു പറയുവാൻ പറ്റുമോ? പറ്റുകയില്ല.

   At first the burden of proving the allegation regarding negligent in conducting surgery of laparoscopic ovariotomy  for the left ovarian  cyst causes injury in sigmoid colon lies  upon complainant.  Complainant alleged that 1^st OP being an expert has not applied his expertise, professional skill and reasonable care in giving his service to the complainant and he done the surgery in a highly negligent and careless manner which resulted in the perforation in the sigmoid colon.  On the other hand 1^st OP submits that utmost care was taken while conducting operation on the complainant.  The learned counsel of OP submitted that the complications in the surgery are well explained in the  consent. The complainant and her husband signed in the consent.  The learned counsel further submitted that the medical  negligence alleged is limited to the injury happened in colon while doing the major surgery like laparoscopic overectomy.  OP submits that every surgical intervention has its own risk.  To support  OP’s contention, learned counsel submitted  various medical texts about the advantages and risk of laparoscopic surgery. 

      “The advantage  of endoscopic surgery  has been  discussed  in Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology(page 806) as follows: endoscopic surgery   has replaced open surgery for many commonly performed gynaecology procedures, such as tubal sterilization, excision of unruptured tubal pregnancies, ablation of peritoneal endometriosis and simple ovarian cystotomy. Endoscopic procedures have several advantages.  They can be performed on a ambulated basis require shorter recovery times, cause less post operative pain and improve cosmetic impact of incisions. Risk:   In Williams Gynaecology 2^nd edition the author observed that “ although laparoscopic treatment on endometrioma cause in associated 5% risk for conversion to laparotomy, laparoscopy should be the primary procedure of choice because of its efficiency and  lower rates of post operative morbidity. 

In Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynaecology 10^th edition the author explained in the chapter Laparoscopic surgery under subheading complication as follows” Information regarding entry access injuries is provided in a review reflecting the physician insurers Accosiation of America.  They noted that entry access injuries occurred n between 5 per 1000 and 3 per 1000 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.  Bowel,rectal and retroperitoneal vascular injuries accounted for 75% of all injuries incurred in the process of establishing a primary plot.

   The author of  Williams Gynaecology 2^nd edition also explained  about the laparoscopy fundamentals in chapter 42 under sub heading Bowel injury as follows: The most common type of organ injury during laparoscopy is bowel injury, its rate of occurrence has been cited as 0.6 and 1.6  per 1000 cases.  The advantage of  endoscopic surgery  has been  discussed  in Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology(page 806) as follows: endoscopic surgery   has replaced open surgery for many commonly performed gynecology procedures, such as tubal sterilization, excision of unruptured tubal pregnancies, ablation of peritoneal endometriosis and simple ovarian cystotomy”.   Learned counsel further submitted observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Kusum Sharma(2010(3)SCC 480) Medical science has  conferred  great benefit of  mankind, but these benefits are attended by considerable risks.  We cannot take the  benefits without taking risks.  Every advance in technique is also attended by risks. 

    It is well known that, there are risks and complications for all surgeries.  Manjoi Anil Chawla Vs. Jivandhara Hospital 2014 2 CPJ(NC)261. 2014 1CPR (NC) 236.

   In the present case PW2 expert doctor deposed that  Insertion of the  laparoscope can cause Bowel injury.  Further deposed that removal of  adrenal mass underlying   sigmoid colon is a  major surgery and there is  chance to  cause sigmoid colon perforation  and the doctor cannot be held liable for negligence for  that.

   We therefore, find  that there was no negligence so far  as the  operation part is concerned.  But when the patient  came with  complaint of abdominal pain, fever with chill and rigor on the very next day of discharge, after 3-4 days of surgery, then there should have been a special care  by conducting evaluation and investigation to rule out wound and infection in the sigmoid colon , instead of administered antibiotics and medicines for fever.  The expert doctor PW2 categorically deposed that the symptom shown in the patient on 27/4/2018(Ext.A7) is sufficient to find out that there is infection on the patient.  From the medical records the condition of the patient subsequent to 27/4/2018 also reveals  the said fact.  PW2 in re-examination deposed that “If the  post –operative complication are identified at proper time by evaluating symptoms, it can be controlled, minimized and managed in  a better way? Yes”.

    We therefore, find that though there was no negligence  so far as the operation part is concerned, but there had been lapse on the part of 1^st OP Gynecologist Doctor  having more experience(having 25 years) in post operative case.

     From the facts of the  case, when the patient came on 27/4/2018 with complaints as stated in Ext.A7, mere administering antibiotic without doing evaluation and investigation, like X-ray, USG or CT of the complainants abdomen, lead the post operative complication in worse and the complainant  had to  suffer from fecal peritonitis  in sepsis, inflammation  in complainant’s abdomen and  for the same an emergent  exploratory laprotomy had to be conducted in another hospital.  From the prescription  as stated in Ext.A7, we cannot blame the  complainant in approaching another hospital for further management of  complication.

     In the present case, another point to be noted is , 1^st OP the Doctor conducted surgery on the patient  with regard to the procedure he had done on 23/4/2018.  1^st OP submitted that laparoscopy oopherectomy was done on 23/4/2018.  He has stated that on 23/4/2018 1^st OP conducted laparoscopic ovariotomy for left ovarian cyst on 23/4/2018 under general anesthesia.   1^st OP also submitted that  the  pros and cons of laparoscopic ovariotomy and the risk factors involved in  laparoscopic surgery including the chance of bladder and bowel injury and written  informed consent was taken before surgery.  Under all care and aseptic precautions  1^st OP conducted laparoscopic  overiotomy on 23//4/2018.

   The consent statement of the patient also shows that consent was obtained for laproscopic ovariotomy/ooppherectomy.

   PW2 Doctor has stated during  evidence and also the case sheet of Unity Hospital Ext.X1 series shows that left infected ovary was removed at Unity Hospital Mangalore which  statement is strongly opposed by the 1^st OP.  On careful perusal of Ext.B1 case  record  of the patient from  Pariyaram Medical College Hospital in page No.6 it is stated that proposed operation- lap oopherectomy.  In page No.11 operation notes also clearly mentioned that Laproscopic(L) ovariotomy under G.A.  Further except one entry in Ext.X1 series, all other medical records Ext.A11 Discharge summary  from Unity Hospital shows that the procedure conducted at Unity Hospital was exploratory laprotomy+sigmoidectomy+colorectal stapled anastomosis+ proximal diversion colostomy done under General Anaesthesia  on 29/4/2018.  The discharge summary from Dhanalakshmi Hospital to where complainant has gone  subsequent to 2^nd OP hospital shows that in history portion Lap Ovarocystectomy on 23/4/2018 ie removal of cyst from ovary through laparoscopic.  In the complaint complainant alleged that the patient was admitted to 1^st OP hospital for doing laproscopic oophorectomy surgery.  From the whole evidence we are also of the opinion that 1^st OP had conducted laparoscopic overiotomy/oopherectomy on the complainant on 23/4/2018 at 1^st OP hospital.

     From the facts and circumstances of  this case there is  deficiency in service on the part of OPs in post operative part.  Hence OPs are held liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

    In the result complaint is allowed in part.  The complainant was made to suffer second surgery and had to remain the  hospital for another  about one month.  She had to spend additional cost of  treatment apart from the incidental expenses.  She had  also to  undergo physical suffering and mental agony for the extended period.  Her family also suffered mental agony .  Complainant has not submitted medical bills of Unity Hospital.  We find opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant, on account of  additional cost of treatment and other expenses incurred to the  complainant for the second surgery and treatment.  We, also held that opposite parties are liable to pay the Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service resulting in physical and mental agony to the complainant and her family.  We further award Rs.10,000/to the complainant as cost in the litigation.  The awarded amount shall be paid by the opposite parties  within one month  from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which the awarded amount Rs.2,60,000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the  date of  order till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to file  execution application for realization of the amount as per  the provisions envisaged in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-USG report issued by Kasthurba Hospital

A2-Sonographic report

A3-Ultra sound scan report

A4-Prescription of 1^st OP

A5&A7-OP records dtd. 30/3/2018 ,27/4/2018

A6-Discharge card of OP hospital

A8-clinical lab report

A9-lab report

A10-Discharge summary issued by Dhanalakshmi hospital

A11-Dischage summary issued  by Unity hospital

A12&A13-Reply notice of OPs

A14-Discharge summary of Unity hospital Dtd.28/5/2018

A15-Discharge summary dtd.10/6/2018

A16-cash bill from 2^nd OP hospital

X1- series-In patient record from Unity Hospital(2 in Nos.)

B1-Case record of 2^nd OP hospital

PW1-Jisha.P.V- complainant

PW2-Dr.Ashfaque Mohamed- witness of PW1

DW1-Dr.Ajith. S- 1^st OP

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR