C.C. No. 50 of 2012. Case: M. Regina Mary and Ors. Vs Van Allen Hospital and Ors.. Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberC.C. No. 50 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: A. Haja Mohideen, Advocate and For Respondents: P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate
JudgesA.K. Annamalai, (Presiding Member (J)) and S. Sambandam, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 338
CitationII (2015) CPJ 1
Judgement DateFebruary 11, 2015
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


A.K. Annamalai, (Presiding Member (J))

  1. The complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in giving treatment to the 1st complainant claiming Rs. 50,00,000 towards compensation for loss of reputation, mental agony, sufferings and Rs. 50,000 as costs. The gist of the complaint as amended subsequently is briefly as follows:

    "The deceased-complainant submits that she got married on 4.6.1971 and in the course of matrimonial life she begotten 2 daughters and 2 sons through normal delivery and she is aged about 56 years living with her husband and 2 sons and 2 daughters. Originally, she was hale and healthy lady. She alone did her domestic works and run their life smoothly and she used to take treatment in the opposite parties hospital No. A6423. She was a regular patient of the opposite parties hospital from the year 1984 and while so she had stomach problem in the year 2001 and so the opposite parties doctor started treatment for her stomach problem and diagnosed that she has to undergo Hysterectomy. The opposite parties took several tests and diagnosed her before the operation and conducted the Hysterectomy operation and removed her uterus, to her misfortunate the opposite parties doctors carelessly, negligently kept surgical Scissor (Surgical Forceps) in her abdomen i.e., in the peritoneal cavity and closed the surgical opening and stitched. This was not noticed by the opposite parties for several years which leads to several continuous complications, pain and sufferings for the deceased-complainant and she was forced to take continuous treatment with the opposite parties and they have collected necessary fees and charges for the said operation. The opposite parties deliberately omitted to take note of the foreign body of surgical scissor (Surgical forceps) kept by them in the abdomen of the complainant. The principle of "res ipsa loquitur" clearly applies to the opposite parities. The deceased-complainant without knowing what to do again she approached the opposite parties and begged them to save her life. The opposite parties pacified her and prescribed some medicines and promised that after taking those tablets the entire happenings would be changed. She bona fidely took the medicines prescribed by the opposite parties. But nothing changed. So, they have again approached the opposite parties but no remedy was given to the complainant. The deceased complainant decided to approach some super specialist to ascertain the real happenings and a correct treatment to control the stomach pain. At last, her son took her to Leonard Hospital, Batlagundu for taking treatment and on diagnosing they suspected the presence of some foreign body in the stomach and immediately took advanced CT scan and found out the presence of surgical scissor (Surgical forceps) in the complainant's peritoneal cavity and she was put to terrific fear, untold mental agony, terrific shock, pain, sufferings, severing, etc. and underwent only one surgery with the opposite parties on 12.4.2001 and they only committed such inhuman terrific, barbaric, careless, negligent, etc., acts on the deceased-complainant by leaving this scissor (Surgical forceps) in her stomach and forced her to suffer all along and shattered and pattered her life and thereby the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to answer the complainants. The opposite parties failed to follow their Professional Ethics and failed to consult the super specialist and want only, wilfully, carelessly, negligently, deliberately failed to take necessary steps to prevent or stop the stomach pain to the complainant and deliberately failed to get second opinion in their subsequent diagnose of continuous stomach pain and simply prescribed some unconnected medicines. The deceased complainant charged the opposite parties that they have carelessly and negligently conducted the uterus removal surgery and miserably placed the Scissor (Surgical forceps) in the stomach and failed to diagnose and suppressed the correct reason for the continuous stomach pain and caused great sufferings to the complainant. At last when the deceased-complainant approached the opposite parties on 31.5.2012 along with the Scan Report seeking necessary relief, the opposite parties doctors shocked on seeing the Scan report and they have referred her to the Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital."

  2. The deceased-complainant further submits that she rushed to the Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital as asylum to save her life from the ordeal and got admitted on 31.5.2012 and the doctors' took hectic steps to prepare her for surgery since her condition was eroded due to prolonged presence of foreign body and she was evaluated with ascetic fluid analysis, Echo and repeat CT abdomen to confirm the presence of foreign body. The deceased-complainant was evaluated by cardiologist also and diagnosed as pulmonary hypertension with LV dysfunction (EF 50%) and treatment started accordingly. But, on 5.6.2012 she had dyspnoea and became restless, unconscious, hence intubated and shifted to IRCU for ventilator support. Thus her condition was gone to bad to worst and she was forced to count her days. In the said circumstances the Cardiologist reviewed and she was weaned off ventilator on 7.6.2012 when stable complainant's general condition improved with the treatment for cardiac failure. In the said circumstances, the doctors explained to her son that there is risk of laparotomy for foreign body due to the cardiac condition. But, it was not advisable to left the foreign body in that place itself and it will endanger her. So, anesthetist opinion was taken...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT