9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Negligence before the operation. 2. Negligence during the operation. 3. Negligence after the operation. 4. Adequacy of compensation awarded by the Commission. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Negligence before the operation: The complainant argued that pre-operative diagnostic investigations were not fully carried out. Despite four futile attempts at needle biopsies, a C.T. Scan or MRI by an experienced Radiologist was not performed, which could have revealed the existence of the tumour and its nature. The respondents contended that the investigations were conducted by a Radiologist and that sufficient information about the extent of the tumour had already been revealed. The Commission observed that there was pre-operative information about vertebral erosion and that necessary pre-operative diagnostic tests like MRI and myelogram were not conducted. This failure deprived the complainant of the services of a neurosurgeon in the entire surgery. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the involvement of the vertebral column had been revealed pre-operatively, and the necessary tests could have indicated the need for a neurosurgeon. 2. Negligence during the operation: The complainant alleged that the surgery was performed without the involvement of a neurosurgeon, despite the tumour's neurological implications. The Commission found that the surgery involved the removal of the tumour and the fourth rib, leading to paraplegia, and that a neurosurgeon was called in belatedly. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the tumour's extension into the spinal area required a neurosurgeon's intervention. The Court emphasized that the failure to associate a neurosurgeon at the pre-operative and operative stages was a clear case of negligence. 3. Negligence after the operation: The complainant alleged negligence in post-operative treatment, leading to bedsores, severe pain, and high temperature. The Commission found negligence in the post-operative stage, noting that the operating surgeon and neurosurgeon left the theatre without informing the complainant's parents about the surgery's outcome. The Supreme Court, however, found no specific case spelt out on this score and only general observations stemming from the complications arising out of an operation gone wrong. 4. Adequacy of compensation awarded by the Commission: The Commission awarded compensation under various heads, including prospective charges for physiotherapy, nursing, future earnings, and mental agony. The complainant sought an enhancement of the compensation, arguing that it was inadequate. The Supreme Court revised the compensation, considering the complainant's need for continuous medical aid, physiotherapy, nursing care, and future earnings. The Court awarded a total sum of Rs. 1 crore plus interest from 1st March 1999 to the date of payment, giving due credit for any compensation already paid. The Court declined the complainant's claim for Rs. 2 crore to be set aside for future medical developments as hypothetical and unjustified. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the findings of negligence before and during the operation and revised the compensation awarded by the Commission, ensuring a reasonable income for the complainant's future needs. The Court emphasized the need for a balance between inflated demands and the opposite party's claims, ensuring adequate compensation based on the peculiar facts of the case.
|
