RAMAGURU vs S. ESSAKIMUTHU

THE complainant had abnormal growth of tissues in his right shoulder and was advised to undergo surgery for decompression. THE complainant was admitted in the hospital on 23.5.1998 and he was operated upon. In spite of operation, he continued to experience pain in his shoulder and the right arm. He is not able to move his hand. THErefore, he had go to Chennai to consult the doctor in the Railway Hospital, but they were also not in a position to help the complainant. THErefore, alleging deficiency, the complaint has been laid against the opposite party.

THE opposite party contended that the complainant came with a history of pain in his shoulder and right hand loss of sensation and diminished vascularity. He was admitted in Jeyaraj Annapackiam Mission Hospital, Palayamkottai on 23.5.1998 for operation of right I Rib removal to decompress the neuro vacular bundle. THE operation was done very carefully observing all formalities and the complainant was advised to follow certain post operative treatment. But the complainant was irregular and irresponsible. Thus there was no deficiency in service. The lower Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.

That the complainant was admitted for surgery in C.S.I. Jeyaraj Annapackiam Mission Hospital, Palayamkottai and the operation was done by the opposite party is not challenged. The complainant had complained of shoulder pain and the right hand. According to the opposite party since it required surgery for removal of abnormal growth of tissues and decompress the neural or vascular structures, such a surgery was conducted to release the muscles and ease the movement of muscles and blood flow. It is also seen from the records that the complainant was treated as an inpatient for 5 days after the operation. The complainant would allege that even after operation, there was no improvement. His case is that when he went to the hospital at Madras and consulted the doctor there, the doctor who examined him stated that some vein has been cut. According to the complainant, he is not able to move his arms at all and is thus suffering disability which is only attributable to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the Thoracic Outlet Syndrome is a long procedure and it will take long time for complete cure and that after operation, the patient has to undergo physiotherapy. It is further stated that the complainant did not heed the advice of the doctor and did not follow certain post-operative treatment and thus was irregular and irresponsible. From the records produced we see that after surgery the complaint of severe pain on the right shoulder and numbness on the right hand was no longer there. But his case is that he is not able to grip anything with his right hand. The certificate Ex. A8 issued by the Railway Doctor shows that the complainant is suffering from cervical spondylosis with brachia neuralgia of right upper limb. According to the said certificate, the patient is having weakness of the right forearm and hand functions involving the grip. Thus, we find that the complainant has some problem now. But whether the said problem is attributable as a consequence of the surgery done on him by the opposite party is a question to be decided. The complainant was examined by the Railway Doctor on 1.12.1998. He underwent surgery at the hands of the opposite party in May, 1998. Though the opposite party has produced the case sheet, the opposite party has not chosen to take the witness stand or subject himself to cross-examination. On the other hand, the certificate issued by the Railway Doctor mentions that it is due to post transauxillary rib resection. The complainant underwent operation at the hands of the opposite party because he had pain in the shoulder and arm. But now after the operation we find that he has developed weakness of the limb with the result that he is not able to grip things. Though the opposite party would contend that the complainant has not adhered to the instructions of the doctor regarding post-operative treatment, the details of the same are not spoken to by the doctor. The records produced show that the complainant underwent physiotherapy after the operation. There is nothing on record to show that he was reviewed by the opposite party after his discharge from the hospital. A man with pain in the shoulder and in the arm underwent an operation. But he has now weakness of limb namely he is not able to grip things. The use of arm is essential for the complainant. Therefore, we find that on account of his disability he could not carry on his duties as an employee of the Railway Organization and he could not be found a suitable job considering his nature of ailment.

PUTTING all these facts together, if we analyse, it will be clear that the weakness in the limbs is a sequel to or has set as a post-operative complication. It is not the case of the opposite party that such a complication is an anticipated one or that a particular percentage of patients undergoing surgery have such a complication. Therefore, it is clear that the present physical disability suffered by the complainant can be attributable only to the surgery conducted upon him. For, it is a consequence of the same and it is a post-operative complication. As we pointed out already, the opposite party has not produced any material authorities nor examined himself to say that it was an expected complication or that the operation was performed with all expertise and care. Therefore, it follows that the present disability of the complainant is on account of the deficiency in service by the opposite party. Hence, the lower Forum was justified in holding that there is deficiency in service. The complainant cannot be expected to know the medical jargon or the medical facts so as to put forward in a cogent manner in his complaint. His case is simple. In that, after undergoing operation at the hands of the opposite party, his suffering became worse. The opposite party has not chosen to disprove it by producing any medical authority or by examining himself. Therefore, on account of some mistake in surgery or on account of some overlooking of some precautions, the present disability had occurred affecting the life and future of the complainant. Hence, in such circumstances, we do not find any reason to disturb the verdict of the lower Forum. Therefore, in the result, we dismiss the appeal confirming the orders passed by the lower Forum. Appeal dismissed.