COMPLAINT NO.85/2001

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2. Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member

3. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member

BETWEEN:



Sri.K.Sundara,

S/o. Thukra,

Kepulu House,

Chikkamudnur Village,

Puttur Taluk,

Dakshina Kannada. …….. COMPLAINANT



(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.A.P. Gowrishankar).



VERSUS



1. Dr.(Smt.) H.T. Manorama Rao,

Manorama Hospital,

New Kambla Cross Road,

Mangalore – 575 003.



2. Dr.Jayaprakash Rao,

Jayashree Nursing Home,

K.S., Rao Road,

Mangalore – 575 003.



(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 & 2: Sri.M.S.Krishna Prasad).



3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Rasik Chamber,

Opposite Central Market,

Mangalore – 575 001.

……. OPPOSITE PARTIES



(Advocate for Opposite Party No.3: Sri. P.Janakiram)
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:



1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging medical negligence against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

The Complainant’s case in brief is that on 13.1.1999 he has taken his wife, the now deceased Shailaja to Opposite Party No.1 for medical check-up as Shailaja did not become pregnant even after lapse of 2½ years from the date of her marriage. After initial examination, Opposite Party No.1 directed the scanning. After reading the report of scanning, Opposite Party No.1 felt that detailed check-up was necessary. Accordingly, further examinations were done at the University Medical centre at Balmatta, Mangalore. The Complainant further contends that he, along with his wife Shailaja and along with mother of Shailaja went to Opposite Party No.1 on 27.2.1999 carrying the reports of various tests done till that date. On seeing the reports, Opposite Party No.1 felt that Shailaja had normal health and that she required a D and C operation done. Opposite Party No.1 also opined that Shailaja was in a fit condition to undergo D and C. Accordingly, at about 4.30 P.M. on 27.2.1999 Opposite Party No.1 took Shailaja into the Operation Theatre in Manorama Hospital. Earlier to the D and C operation, Opposite Party No.1 gave Shailaja, injection of general anesthesia. D and C operation was done when Shailaja was completely unconscious as a result of general anaesthesia. After operation she was brought out of the Operation Theatre. Shailaja was still unconscious and she did not regain consciousness for the whole night. The Complainant contends that there was not even oxygen cylinder in the nursing home of Opposite Party No.1. Oxygen cylinder was secured from outside after making telephone call at about 11.00 p.m. Telephone calls were made to Dr.Shanker, Dr.Prabhakar Rao and other specialists and their presence was secured and under their supervision, treatment was attempted. Since Shailaja did not regain consciousness and since there was no Intensive care Unit in the Nursing Home of Opposite Party No.1, Shailaja was shifted to Jayashree Nursing Home of Opposite Party No.2 Dr.Jayaprakash Rao in the ambulance van in which oxygen cylinder was brought. The Complainant contends that on the way to the Nursing Home of Opposite Party No.2, the oxygen pipe got disconnected from the patient’s nose.

According to the Complainant, treatment continued in the Nursing Home of Opposite Party No.2 till 14.7.1999. Shailaja continued to be unconscious. It is contended that since there was no progress in the health condition of Shailaja, she was got discharged from Opposite Party No.2’s Nursing Home and was taken to Fr.Muller’s Hospital, Mangalore for further treatment. Shailaja however did not regain consciousness even thereafter and she breathed her last on 20.11.1999.

The Complainant contends that Shailaja lost consciousness on account of administration of excessive anaesthetic, which fact is being suppressed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in order to avoid liability. The Complainant denies the Opposite Parties’ contention that Shailaja lost consciousness on account of heart-arrest after completion of D and C. According to the Complainant, such story is only imaginary and is put forward to Vail-away the liability of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant contends that apart from administering excessive anaesthetic Opposite Parties did not take care even to provide supply of oxygen to the patient and that affected the brain of the patient. The Complainant further contends that apart from the absence of oxygen supply, Opposite Party No.1’s Nursing Home did not have the presence of the required specialists. The Complainant further contends that it was only at 11.30 p.m., that he was told that the patient was required to be shifted to the Nursing Home of Opposite Party No.2 because the condition of the patient was serious and that Opposite Party No.1’s Nursing Home did not have the required facilities and instruments and the specialists to treat the patient in such condition.

The Complainant further contends that even at the Nursing Home of Opposite Party No.2 the treatment was not proper. Urine and stools were being removed artificially. The patient did not regain consciousness even after treatment for long period. The Complainant contends that Shailaja died on account of negligence and deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties.

The Complainant contends that Shailaja was working as a typist in the Nekkiladi Village Panchayath Office and was getting monthly salary of Rs.800/-. On account of untimely death of Shailaja the Complainant not only lost his wife in young age but also suffered monetary loss and mental agony apart from the expenses and the physical sufferings, for which the Complainant estimates damages of Rs.10,00,000/- but has restricted the relief to Rs.5,00,000/- to bring the complaint within the financial jurisdiction of the District Forum as according to the Complainant he was unable to go to the State Commission in the state capital to prosecute his complaint. Hence the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). And further the Complainant has claimed interest and costs of the litigation expenses.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version.

Opposite Party No.3 was impleaded as Opposite Parties 1 and 2 claimed that they have taken professional insurance from Opposite Party No.3.

Opposite Party No.1 has filed a version contending that she retired as a Professor and Head of the Department of Gynecology and is a Professor Emeritus of Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore and Opposite Party No.2 is an Associate Professor of Surgery of the very same college. She has further contended that Shailaja was admitted at Manorama Consultation Hospital of Opposite Party No.1 in the evening of 27.2.1999 for D and C Operation after thorough check-up and investigation including blood, urine and ECG tests. Her general condition was assessed by eminent doctor, A.Prabhakar Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore. Electro-cardiogram was also taken prior to the operation and the report was perused by Dr.A.Prabhakar Rao before operation. All pre-operative tests were done and after satisfying that Shailaja was capable of undergoing the operation, D and C operation was done on her.

She has further contended that D and C was done at 5.30 p.m. on 27.2.1999 at Manorama Consultation Hospital, anaesthetic was administered by Dr.H.T.Radha, who is an expert in the field. Operation was successful, Shailaja was shifted to recovery room at 5.50 p.m., at the time of removal to recovery room she was perfectly normal and had regained consciousness and was alert and was capable of talking, the Complainant being her husband was followed to be by her side in the recovery room. It is further contended that at 7.55 p.m., Smt.Shailaja complained of severe chest pain and it was diagnosed as coronary spasm due to stress. Dr.H.T.Radha who happened to be there observed that Shailaja was going to have some cardiac problem and found out that her pulse rate started coming down. Later, Shailaja lost consciousness due to cardiac arrest, duty nurses and Opposite Party No.1 and other doctors who was assembled in the recovery room, gave external cardiac message and resusciation including incubation and ventilation. At about 7.58 p.m. heart picked up and she was immediately connected to cardiac monitor and pulse oximeter. Meanwhile, all necessary life-saving drugs and injections were administered to Smt.Shailaja. Dr.A.Prabhakar Rao who was summoned, came there at 8.10 p.m. and tested Shailaja and studied the procedure adopted and prescribed additional procedure of Myovin patches to the chest and administration of ‘angizem’ to prevent further recurrence of coronary spasm. She further contends that even though heart condition was restored, Shailaja did not regain consciousness inspite of best efforts of all attending doctors. At about 9.50 p.m., she developed ‘tension’ pneumo thorax. Opposite Party NO.2 who had come there from Jayashree Nursing Home, had drained the air in the thoracic cavity by putting the inter coastal tube to the thoracic cavity. At about 11.00 p.m., Dr.Suresh Pai came and examined Shailaja and directed that she should be connected to the ventilator.

She further contends that at about 11.00 p.m., Shailaja was shifted to Jayashree Nursing Home managed by Opposite Party No.2. She has contended that Manorama Consultation Hospital was well equipped with intensive care facility. However, Shailaja was removed to Jayashree nursing Home only for the convenience of different visiting doctors as it is centrally located at K.S. Rao Road, Mangalore. It is further contended that on arrival at Jayashree Nursing Home, Shailaja was removed to Intensive Care Unit, where she was treated till 14.4.1999, on which day she was removed to a fully furnished special room at Jayashree Nursing Home. After admission in that hospital, reputed neurologist Dr.Shankar examined her at 11.30 p.m. who diagnosed that the impending damage to the heart on account of cardiac arrest was reversed but damage to the brain was not reversed. She has contended that Dr.Shankar was treated Smt.Shailaja throughout her stay at Jayashree Nursing Home. She has further contended that damage to the brain occurred due to cardiac arrest. She has further contended that both Opposite Parties 1 and 2 attended on Smt.Shailaja taking great pain and labour and efforts to save her. Both the Opposite Parties and other doctors who attended on her were practically visiting her every day. Shailaja was got discharged on 14.7.1999 against medical advice as insisted upon by her husband and their relatives.

Opposite Party No.1 has contended that the total bill amount was Rs.1,02,261/- inclusive of room rent, service charges, investigation charges, professional charges of doctors, which however was not paid. Opposite Party No.1 has denied deficiency, negligence or imperfection. Opposite Party No.1 has denied that damage to the brain was not due to administration of excessive anesthetic nor due to absence of oxygen supplied.

Opposite Party No.2 and 3 have filed a separate version almost on similar lines, denying negligence or deficiency or liability to pay compensation. Opposite Party No.3 has also contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the issues involved in the case are complicated which cannot be decided in a summary proceeding.



3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?



(ii) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed medical negligence on their part?



(iii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iv) What order?



4. In support of the complaint, Sri.K.Sundara (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and subjected himself for cross-examination. One Smt.Honnamma (CW2) – mother of deceased Smt.Shailaja – witness of the Complainant was examined and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the parties. Ex C1 to C13 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Dr.H.T.Manorama Rao (RW1), Medical Practitioner/Opposite Party No.1, one Dr.H.T.Jayaprakash Rao (RW2) – Associate professor and Department of Surgery/Opposite Party No.2 and one Dr.H.T.Radha Rao (RW3) – witness of the Opposite Parties filed counter affidavits and examined and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the parties. One Dr.Suresh Pai (RW4) – Cardio Thoracic surgeon, one Dr.A.Prabhakara Rao (RW5) – Consulting physician, one Dr.Shankar (RW6) – Neurologist – All the three (RW4, RW5 and RW6) are summoned witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the parties. Ex R1 to R20 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. Both the parties produced notes of arguments along with citations.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.




Reasons

5. Point No. (i):

Earlier, this Hon'ble Forum was pleased to dismiss the above complaint as per the order dated 15.06.2005. As against the said order, the Complainant has preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1023/2005 before the Hon’ble State Commission. The said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to dispose off the matter afresh after due notice to the parties.

After the remand, fresh notice was issued to both the parties and both the parties submitted notes of arguments. No additional evidence led by the parties. The evidence earlier led/produced available in the file are considered for disposal of the complaint.

As far as issue No.(i) is concerned, the Hon’ble State Commission has already decided that the complaint is maintainable and not barred by limitation. In view of the findings given by the Hon’ble State Commission the question of considering the issue No.(i) does not arise.



Point No. (ii) to (iv):

As far as point No.(ii) is concerned, it is the case wherein the main complaint was filed against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 alleging medical negligence on their part in the matter of medical treatment of the Complainant’s now deceased wife Smt.Shailaja resulting in her death on 20th November 1999. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 who are the doctors against whom the negligence is alleged and the Opposite Parties denied the allegation and contended that they have taken proper care and there is no negligence whatsoever.

In this case, the Complainant examined CW1 and CW2 and produced Ex C1 to C13 in support of his case. Opposite Parties also led evidence and examined RW1 to RW6 and produced entire case sheet pertaining to Smt.Shailaja before this Hon'ble Forum.

Before discussing the point in issue, we would like to reproduce what is medical negligence has been termed. As per Halsbury’s Laws of England – Volume 6 (3rd edition) pages 17-18, medical negligence has been termed in following terms:-

“22. Negligence: duties owed to the patient. A person who holds himself oat as ready to give medical (a) advice or treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person, whether he is a registered medical practitioner or not, who is consulted by a patient, owes him certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give: and a duty of care in his administration of that treatment (b) A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient (c)”.

23. Degree of skill and care required. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest, nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires (d) a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way (d0; nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, although a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men (e).”



It is well settled law that it is for the Complainant/ person who makes the allegation of medical negligence to state and prove as to what the doctors should have done which he did not do or what the doctor did, what he should not have done? The entire onus of proof lies on the Complainant herein a person who makes the allegation. Such allegation has to be supported by an expert medical evidence/opinion.

In the instant case, it is the definite case of the Complainant that his wife Smt.Shailaja did not conceive for long time after consummation of their wedding, both of them consulted the 1st Opposite Party who is a Gynecologist, she has suggested to undergo D and C treatment to his wife. On the advice of the doctor Smt.Shailaja admitted to the nursing home of the 1st Opposite Party on 27.2.1999. The 1st Opposite Party also admitted that Smt.Shailaja was admitted on the evening of 27.2.1999 for D and C operation. It is alleged before the FORA that in the Operation Theatre (herein after called O.T) before the operation general anesthesia was administered to the patient and the D and C was carried on within O.T by Opposite Party No.1 along with her assistants in complete unconscious state. At about 5.30 p.m., in complete unconscious state the patient was brought out of the OT and was kept lying outside the OT, she was unconscious and did not at all regain consciousness thereafter till her death on 20.11.1999. It is alleged that the above state of health was due to excessive dosage of anesthesia and further there was no oxygen cylinder available at the nursing home at that time and the Opposite Party No.1 could get oxygen cylinder later from outside about 10 p.m. Due to want of oxygen irreparable damage had already been caused to her brain and she never regained consciousness. And further alleged that as there was no facilities at nursing home of the Opposite Party No.1 the patient was later shifted to Jayashree Nursing Home, she was treated at Jayashree Nursing Home till 14.7.1999 and the treatment was ineffective, therefore she was shifted to Fr.Muller’s hospital at Mangalore on 14.7.1999 and treatment continued. The patient did not regain consciousness till she passed away till 20.11.1999 and contended that due to the above medical negligence the patient was passed away and the Complainant lost his wife and suffered immensely.

The Opposite Parties contended that after the D and C operation the patient regained consciousness and she was quiet conscious till about 7.55 p.m. On that day at about 7.55 p.m. she complained severe chest pain and on examination it was revealed that she was suffering from coronary spasm due to stress and doctor H.T.Radha observed that the patient was going to have some cardiac problem and that her pulse rate was going down and thereafter she lost consciousness due to cardiac arrest. They had applied external cardiac message, resusciation including incubation and ventilation. At about 7.58 p.m. her heart picked up and she was immediately connected to cardiac monitor and pulse oximeter and life saving drugs and injections were administered and contended that there was no negligence and they have called many number of doctors to rule out the problem and later for better treatment she was shifted to Jayashree Nursing Home and stated that though the heart condition of the patient was restored but she did not regain consciousness and contended that there was no negligence.

From the rival contentions of the parties it reveals that the Complainant seriously contended that the patient was unconsciousness and did not at all regain consciousness after the operation till her death on 20.11.1999. But the Opposite Parties contended that the patient was quiet conscious at the time of bringing her out of the OT and subsequently she suffered cardiac arrest and she had lost consciousness and that the Opposite Parties are not responsible for unexpected cardiac arrest and lost consciousness. In order to prove the case of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties examined RW1 to RW6 and produced entire case sheets pertaining to Smt.Shailaja. Complainant examined CW1 and CW2 and produced Ex C1 to C13.

We have perused the entire case sheet produced by the Opposite Party pertaining to Smt.Shailaja reveals that after the operation and when she brought out of the OT the patient was conscious, responding well, awake and obeys commands and shifted to R and C room at about 5.50 p.m. Further case sheet reveals that at about 6 p.m. and 6.15 p.m. her BP, pulse and general condition was checked and noted in the case sheet and stated that the patient was awake responds to the orders/commands. At about 6.55 p.m. the patient complained of severe chest pain and Dr.H.M. Rao, Dr.Kauslya and Dr.H.T.S. Rao called and noted that the patient developed cardiac arrest and the patient incubated etc. etc. From the above case sheets which has written at the undisputed point of time reveals that the patient was awake and obeys to the commands and she was conscious. When that being the case, we cannot suspect that the patient was unconscious state or she has not regained conscious soon after the operation. The contention that Smt.Shailaja not at all regained conscious after the surgery till her death is not acceptable.

The Complainant specifically contended that before the D and C operation Smt.Shailaja was conscious and after the D and C operation Smt.Shailaja was complete unconscious state and she did not regain the conscious till her death. It is contended that the above state of health was due to excessive dosage of anaesthisia and there was no oxygen cylinder in the said hospital and due to want of oxygen irreparable damage was caused to her brain and there was no facilities at nursing home of the 1st Opposite Party. Because of the medical negligence Smt.Shailaja lost her consciousness and later passed away on 20.11.1999.

The Opposite Party contended that the patient had suffered heart arrest after the operation and thereafter she became unconscious and to prove their case they have examined six witnesses but the Complainant not examined any of the expert in order to prove their case.

However in this case, we find that there is no dispute of the fact that Smt.Shailaja was the wife of the Complainant and she consulted the 1st Opposite Party in respect of non- conceiving for long time after their marriage and the 1st Opposite Party on examination suggested to undergo D and C treatment to Smt.Shailaja. On the advice of the doctor they went to Manorama Nursing Home of the 1st Opposite Party on 27.2.1999. The case sheets maintained during the undisputed point of time by Manorama Nursing Home and Jayashree Nursing Home pertaining to Smt.Shailaja reveal that before the operation all the necessary tests were done and ECG was taken and she was physically fit to undergo D and C operation. Before the operation the general anesthesia was administered to the patient by one Dr.H.T.Radha is an anesthetic besides being the sister of the Opposite Party No.1. On 27.2.1999 at about 5.30 p.m., the 1st Opposite Party with the assistance of other staffs performed the D and C operation. After the surgery the patient Shailaja was shifted to recovery room at 5.50 p.m. The Opposite Party placed a evidence before the FORA that the patient Shailaja complained of severe chest pain at about 7.55 p.m. and it was diagnosed as coronary spasm due to stress and Dr.H.T. Radha who happened to be there at the time and observed that Shailaja was going to have some cardiac problem and found out that her pulse rate started coming down. Later, Shailaja lost consciousness due to cardiac arrest, duty nurses and Opposite Party No.1 and other doctors who assembled in the recovery room gave external cardiac message and resusciation including incubation and ventilation. At about 7.58 p.m. heart picked up and she was immediately connected to cardiac monitor and pulse oximeter. All necessary life-saving drugs and injections were administered to Smt.Shailaja. Dr.A.Prabhakar Rao who was the cardiologist was summoned, came there at 8.10 p.m. and tested Shailaja and studied the procedure adopted and prescribed additional procedure of Myovin patches to the chest and administration of ‘angizem’ to prevent further recurrence of coronary spasm. Even though the heart condition was restored Shailaja did not regain consciousness. At about 9.50 p.m., she developed tension pneumo thorax. Opposite Party No.2 who had come there from Jayashree Nursing Home, had drained the air in the thoracic cavity by putting the inter coastal tube to the thoracic cavity. At about 10.00 p.m. Dr.Suresh Pai, Cardio Thoracic Surgeon came and examined Shailaja. At about 11 p.m. Shailaja was shifted to Jayashree Nursing Home managed by Opposite Party No.2. Only for the convenience of different visiting doctors as it is centrally located at K.S. Rao Road Mangalore. On arrival at Jayashree Nursing Home she was removed to Intensive Care Unit where she was treated till 14.4.1999 and neurologist Dr.Shankar diagnosed that the impending damage to the heart on account of cardiac arrest was reversed but damage to the brain was not been reversed. There is no contra evidence produced by the Complainant in order to show that Smt.Shailaja was not suffered from cardiac arrest after the surgery. The unconsciousness caused due to over dosage of anaesthesia or due to want of oxygen.

However, we have referred the citation ILR 1999 Karnataka 4212 in a case Dr.U.K. Kini and another versus K.Vasudeva Pai and Others. In the said citation the expert Dr.Jayadevappa who was the part time Registrar of Karnataka Medical council Bangalore, he has stated about the cardiac arrest. The cardiac arrest is a stopping of functioning of heart, brain and lungs is called cardiac arrest. Further he has stated that the effect of over dosage of anaesthesia are a respiratory depression, hypoxia, cardiac irregularities like fibrillation, asystole. The Hypoxia can be occurred due to non-supply of sufficient oxygen to the patient. But in the given case, as admitted by the Complainant that the patient Shailaja had taken treatment in Jayashree Nursing Home till 14.7.1999 and thereafter continued the treatment at Fr. Muller’s hospital, the patient did not regain consciousness till she passed away on 20.11.1999 in the above said hospital. When that being the case, the doctors who treated in Fr. Muller’s hospital is the best witness to speak about the state of health of the patient Shailaja in this case. The Complainant neither attempted to examine the doctors of the Fr. Muller’s hospital who treated the patient nor produced the case sheet of the said hospital. No expert evidence is available on record except the evidence of RW1 to RW6 and the evidence of CW1 and CW2. The entire case reveals that what is the cause for a pathetic condition of the patient after the operation till her death is not available except we have to rely on the evidence of the RW1 to RW6. The evidence of the RW1 to RW6 categorically stated that the patient suffered from cardiac arrest. When that being the case, it is the bounden duty of the Complainant to examine independent expert to show that the patient Shailaja was unconscious right after the operation we can say when she brought out of the OT due to administration of over dosage of anaesthesia or want of oxygen. In the given case, no evidence is available on record to hold that the state of health of Smt.Shailaja was due to the over dosage of the anaesthesia or due to want of oxygen supply her brain was damaged. We find that, in the absence of expert evidence it is very difficult to consider that the Opposite Parties committed medical negligence.

There is no record to show that because of over dosage of the anaesthesia or non supply of the oxygen at the operation theatre the above state of health was caused. We cannot arrive at the conclusion that the anaesthetist was negligent or the gynecologist i.e., the Opposite Party No.1 is negligent. The medical record maintained by the Opposite Party hospital clearly reveal that after the operation the patient was conscious and only after regaining conscious she has complained chest pain and subsequently she has suffered from cardiac arrest. Though the cardiac arrest was restored but the consciousness was not regained. We have nothing on record to indicate as to when the anaesthetist or the Opposite Party No.1 were negligent while administering the anaesthesia or supplying the oxygen and the hospital of the Opposite Party No.1 was not equipped to conduct the above surgery. In this case the Complainant based the case entirely on the essence of the time. It could not be disputed that the time was the essence. It was the onerous duty of anesthetist to monitor the patient, keep the operating surgeon informed what is happening/what is missing and note down on the operation notes. The above all notes are finding in the operation notes/case records maintained by the Opposite Party hospital. Further it is also recorded that at about 7.55 p.m. the patient developed sudden cardiac arrest. To say the least, we are not impressed with the evidence filed after several years at best could be said to be an after thought. What is germane for us is the record/operation notes. They are speaking on what the Opposite Party filed in their affidavit which we found acceptable.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant miserably failed to prove the medical negligence as against the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.



6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.



Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.