SUNDER RAJ vs P.P.K. Memorial Hospital

THE complainant in C.O.P. No. 6/2001 on the file of the District Forum, Nagercoil is the appellant herein. He had direct inguinal hernia, for which he was advised to undergo surgery. He underwent surgery on 11.3.2000 in the opposite parties. He was discharged on 17.3.2000. Even after discharge, he did not get relief. He consulted the doctors at Government Hospital, Parassala on 26.8.2000. THE doctors there found that the disease had not cured but had recurred and suggested re-surgery. Attributing deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint came to be filed.

THE opposite parties resisted the complaint saying that there was no deficiency in service on their part, nor was there any negligence that they had done the surgery properly that they had also advised the complainant not to lift heavy objects and apparently because he had not followed their advise, it had recurred. THE complaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The District Forum accepted the case of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.

It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

MR. V. Balaji, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties had not performed the surgery properly and only because of that it had recurred. Counsel also submitted that there was no proof that the complainant lifted heavy objects after the surgery and this had resulted in the recurrence of the problem. Per contra, Mr. K. Mohanan Nair, learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant was working as a Roaster in a cashew factory which involved heavy work and that immediately after the surgery had gone back to work and in the process the problem recurred.

IT is a matter of common knowledge that hernia recurs. IT is seen from the records that one Dr. L.N. Soman of Parassala Government Hospital has given a certificate, marked as Ex. A13, to the Complainant stating that the complainant was suffering from direct inguinal hernia left side; that he had been advised to do light work as the hernia would protrude more if physical exertion was severe and that he was further advised to undergo surgery for the disease. This certificate had been given on 26.8.2000. One Dr. Pratap Ghanamuttu, Civil Surgeon and Professor of Surgery, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital had Sworn to an affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties stating as follows: (a) The treatment for Direct inguinal hernia is surgical correction. (b) The recurrence of hernia after surgery is an inherent risk associated with any surgery for hernia. (c) Early return to work especially lifting of heavy objects is one of the causes for the recurrence of inguinal hernia after surgery. (d) The respiratory infection which causes cough is one of the causes for the recurrence of hernia. This may be an added fact for this case to recur. (e) The standard treatment for recurrent hernia is again surgical correction. IT is also a simple surgery.

This has been filed along with the proof affidavit of the second opposite party. Another certificate from Dr. B. Shyam Kumar which is marked as Ex. A14 states that the complainant was suffering from left inguinal hernia and he was advised to do light work only. Both the certificates had been issued on 26.8.2000. These certificates also do not point any accusing finger at the opposite parties. They only show that there was need to undergo surgery and that the complainant should not lift heavy weight. Dr. B. Shayam Kumar, who had given a certificate Ex. A14 to the complainant, has also sworn to an affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties to the effect that the recurrent hernia to the complainant was not due to wrong and negligent surgery as alleged by the complainant and that recurrent inguinal hernia was an inherent risk of any surgery for hernia. It is not disputed that the complainant went back to work immediately after the first surgery. The nature of the work he was doing also involved straining oneself. Thus he ran the risk of hernia recurring. When once he had not heeded to the advice of the doctors, there was really no point in finding fault with the opposite parties. There is a lot of literature to show that there would be recurrence of inguinal hernia after surgery and there has to be a second surgery to get rid of the problem. Thus recurrence after surgery in direct inguinal hernia is an accepted risk in surgery for hernia. Premature resumption of full heavy physical activities after hernial repair increases the inherent risk of recurrence. Respiratory track infection may cause recurrent hernia. The standard procedure of such situation is re-operation. The complainant not having proved the case of negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the District Forum rightly dismissed the same. There is no scope for interference with the order of the District Forum.

IN the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.