w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Dr. Ravishankar v/s Jery K. Thomas & Another

    First Appeal No. 93 of 2006
    Decided On, 03 March 2006
    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. KAPOOR
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellant: R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Savitri Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondents: None.


Judgment Text
B.K. Taimni, Member:

1. Appellant was the second opposite party before the State Commission where the first respondent / complainant had filed a complaint alleging a case of medical negligence against the appellant.

2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the first respondent/complainant Mr. Jerry K. Thomas having some nasal and breathing problem, approached the appellant. Upon examination, the complainant was advised ‘Septoplasty’ which was carried out on 18.8.99 at the second respondent’s Hospital. It is the case of the complainant that after the operation the pain aggravated and breathing problem persisted. After examination, the complainant was advised to take some antibiotics for major nasal infection. Since despite taking these medicines, complainant was not getting any relief, the complainant was taken to St. John’s Hospital, where after C.T. Scan, it transpired that there was a deposit inside the nasal cavity for which endoscopy was done at St. John’s Hospital through which a cotton gauze was removed from his nasal section on 28.11.2000. It is in these circumstances, alleging medical negligence on the part of the appellant and second respondent a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of evidence and other material on record, held the appellant and the second respondent guilty of medical negligence and they were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint along with cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by this order only Dr. Ravi Shankar has filed this appeal before us.

3. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. As rightly observed by the State Commission, it is neither the surgery nor the procedure adopted by the appellant, which is under challenge; what is under challenge is leaving of cotton gauze behind, after surgery by the appellant, and its non-removal by the appellant. The State Commission has relied upon the evidence of one Dr. Balasubramaniam who after going through the record maintained by the St. John’s Hospital opined that on 28.11.2000, after its C.T. Scan, a soft tissue mass (gauze piece) was found retained in the right nasal cavity, which was removed under local anaesthesia. The C.T. Scan clearly indicated that it obliterated the view on the right side of the nose meaning thereby there was something blocking the view in the nose, which in this case was leftover ribbon gauge through the first surgery. It is not the case of the appellant that the entire ribbon gauze has been removed nor is this borne out by the hospital record where the only entry is that-nasal pack was removed. It is also not the case of the appellant that after the nasal surgery any other surgery was done on the complainant, after the surgery carried out by him. In these circumstances, deduction is obvious that it was appellant who is responsible for leaving behind ribbon gauze in the right side of the nose after 'Septoplasty' carried out by him on 18.8.1999 resulting in several complications on account of which the complainant suffered and had to be under treatment for all the while, leaving us with no option but to deduce that it was a clear case o

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
f medical negligence on the part of the appellant. 4. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission as no evidence controverting findings returned by the State Commission have been shown to us. 5. In view of above, we see no merit in this appeal, hence dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
O R