E.J. Bellie, President

1. The complainant's husband was affected by Hydrocele problem. He was treated by the 3rd opposite party Dr. Theivaprakash at Villukuri. Later by the advice of the said 3rd opposite party Doctor he was admitted at the M.L. Hospital, Nagercoil on 30.4.1993. According to the complainant at the time of the admission the 2nd opposite party the Chief Medical Officer of M.L. Hospital received advance for the operation charges and other miscellaneous expenses. On the same day at 10.10 p.m. the patient was taken to the operation theatre. The operation was conducted by the 1st opposite party Dr. N.C. Thanu, assisted by other doctors. The 4th opposite party Dr. Maria John Joseph gave anaesthesia. During the post operative period between 11.20 p.m. on that day and 1.15 a.m. on the next day no Doctor was there to attend to the patient. Only the night duty Nurses including the 5th opposite party were present. At about 12'O clock night, the 5th opposite party Nurse gave an injection to the patient without having any test dose and without checking up the condition of the patient. Immediately within 5 to 10 minutes the patient was affected by fits and was emitting froth. Suddenly the patient collapsed at about 12.15 a.m. (on 1.5.1993). There was no basic amenities available in the Hospital. The opposite parties 1 to 3 Doctors came to the Hospital only after 1.15 a.m. one by one. It was only due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties the complainant's husband died. At 1.15 a.m. without the consent of the complainant or of her relatives the opposite parties 1 to 3 and 6 took the dead body of the complainant's husband to Dr, Jayasekharan Hospital, Parvathipuram. But the body was not allowed inside the Hospital there, and then they took the body to Government Headquarters Hospital at Nagercoil. There also the dead body was not allowed inside. Then they went to the native place of complainant's husband and they put the body inside the house of the deceased at Mankuzhy. All the way from M.L. Hospital to the deceased's house at Mankuzhy the car was being driven by the Chief Medical Officer of the M.L. Hospital namely Dr. Radha- Krishnan. The opposite parties have manipulated the case records of the complainant's husband. The complainant made a complaint to the Nasamony Nagar Police Station for the negligence acts and dereliction of duty of the opposite parties. The death intimation was not given by the opposite parties, in proper time to the concerned Nagercoil Municipality.

2. The complainant's husband as a B.T. (B. Ed.) Assistant in the Government High School, Unnama-laikadai, was at the time of his death drawing a salary of Rs. 3,421/-. per month and he was 52 years of age. Because of the death of her husband due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has been highly affected by mental agony. On these allegations the complaint has been filed claiming several amounts under different heads all totalling to Rs. 14,99,188.20.

3. The 1st opposite party Dr. N.C. Thanu contending as follows filed a written version. The M.L. Hospital is a reputed Hospital with all facilities for Hydrocele operation. Since the patient was referred by the opposite party No. 3 no money was collected from the patient at the time of admission and therefore it is false to state that a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid. The opposite party No. 4 is a qualified Anaesthetist and he administered anaesthesia to the complainant's husband. All the necessary investigations were done and the patient was declared fit for surgery. Opposite party No. 4 certified that the patient was fit for anaesthesia and surgery. After the operation opposite party No. 1 Doctor was in the Hospital for post operative care. No nurse was permitted to treat the patient as alleged in the complaint. Opposite party No. 5 was only a nursing assistant and she never gave injection as stated in the complaint. Immediately after the mid-night the patient developed breathlessness, chest pain and sweating. The opposite party No. 1 examined the patient and suspected that the patient might have suffered Cerebro Vascular accident or Mio Cardial Infarction (heart attack). Immediately the opposite party No. 1 gave emergency treatment to the patient and informed opposite party No. 4. Opposite party No. 4 reached the Hospital and then they both decided to shift the patient to Dr. Jayasekharan Hospital, Nagercoil where facilities for Artificial Ventilation were available. The patient was accompanied by opposite party Nos. 1 and 4 in a taxi bearing Regn. No. TNF 3939. The patient was provided with Endotracheal Intubation and ambubag assisted ventilation while shifting. By the time the taxi neared Dr. Jayasekharan Hospital, the patient died. The duty Doctor in the Jayasekharan Hospital came and examined the body. From there the 3rd opposite party the Family Doctor of the deceased was informed of the death. The opposite party No. 3 came over to Jayasekharan Hospital. The body was thereafter taken to Mankuzhy the native place of the deceased. At the request of the opposite party No. 3, the opposite party Doctors 1 and 4 accompanied opposite party No. 1 to that place. After handing over of the body to the relatives of the deceased opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 returned to Nagercoil.

4. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties as the chart contains the contemporaneous treatment given to the patient and it is not correct to say that corrections or manipulations were made in them as alleged.

5. The allegation that the patient died due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties during the post operative period is false. Therefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

6. The opposite parties 2 and 6 have filed a joint written version and opposite parties 4 and 5 also have filed separate written versions. In these versions the said opposite parties have all averred and contended supporting the averments and contentions raised by the 1st opposite party in his version.

7. The point that arise for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged and if so what relief can be granted to the complainant.

8. Point : There is no deficiency in service alleged by the complainant in performing the operation. The grievance is that during the post operative period i.e., during the night following the operation between 11.20 p.m. and 1.15 a.m. there was no Doctor present at all to attend to the patient and there were only nurses and at about 12 O'clock in the night, the Duty Nurse R. Sashikala the 5th opposite party without having any test dose or checkup of the condition of the patient gave an injection to the patient, and immediately within 5 to 10 minutes the patient had fits and emitting froth and suddenly the patient collapsed and died at 1.15 a.m.

9. The opposite parties in their written versions have categorically denied that there was no Doctor available during the postoperative period i.e., between 11.20 p.m. and 1.15 a.m. and they have further denied that the 5th opposite party nurse gave injection as alleged. The opposite parties would contend that the operation was successful, and after the operation opposite party No. 1 Doctor was in the Hospital for post operative care and no nurse was permitted to treat the patient and the 5th opposite party was only a nursing assistant and she never gave any injection as alleged. It is further contended that immediately after mid-night the patient developed breathlessness, chest pain and sweating. Opposite party No. 1 examined the patient and suspected that the patient might have suffered Cerebro Vascular accident or MioCardial Infarction (heart attack). Immediately the opposite party No. 1 gave emergency treatment to the patient and informed opposite party No. 4 who reached the Hospital and assisted opposite party No. 1. Then the opposite parties 1 and 4 decided to shift the patient to Doctor Jayasekharan Hospital, Nagercoil where facilities for artificial ventilation were available. While the patient was moved in a taxi by opposite parties 1 and 4 with necessary treatment on the way, when the taxi neared the Jayasekharan Hospital, the patient died.

10. There is no evidence on the side of the complainant to show that what she has alleged against the opposite parties true and what the opposite parties have contended in their written version is false. Apart from the evidence of the complainant as PW1 that at 12 O'clock night the 5th opposite party nurse Sashikala gave injection, there is no other evidence in this regard on the complainant's side. The sole evidence of the complainant (PW 1) has been countered by the evidence of the 1st opposite party Dr. Thanu and also the 5th opposite party nurse Sashikala respectively as RW 3 and RW 5. The 1st opposite party (RW 3) has deposed that after the surgery he stayed in the Hospital to look after the patient and at 12 O'clock in the night the staff nurse Sashikala came and said that the patient was not well at that time. He rushed to the patient and attended on him. The patient was suffering from chest pain, weating and having fits. So he concluded that the patient had suffered either (Mio Cardial Infarction) or CVA (Cerebro Vascular accident). So he started resuscitating the patient and called the other Doctors and Dr.. Maria John Joseph, Anaesthetist came within 15 minutes and he assisted him in the treatment. It has to be noted here that no suggestion has been made to him during the cross-examination that the 5th opposite party nurse had given the injection at 12 O'clock in the night. The 5th opposite party Sashikala (RW 5) herself has testified in her evidence that she had not given any injection to the patient. To a further question she stated that at about 12 O'clock in the night Dr. Thanu gave the injection. There is no document whatsoever which would probabanse any injection having been given by the 5th opposite party or any of the nurses at 12 O'clock mid- night. There is no evidence even to show that any injection was given at all by any-body. Of course the 5th opposite party as RW 5 has stated in her cross-examination that Dr. Thanu gave injection. But from this alone without any corroborative evidence it cannot be definitely concluded what the 5th opposite party has said is true. The charge being against her that she gave injection, in the cross-examination when a question was put as to who gave the injection she had blurted out that Dr. Thanu gave the injection. If really Dr. Thanu had given any injection that does not amount to any deficiency in service. It is pointed out that in Ex. A2 M.L. Hospital chart there is no entry between 11 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. as to the condition of the patient. It is so, but from this one cannot conclude that the 5th opposite party nurse had given an injection. The entry made at 12.30 a.m. clearly corroborates the evidence of Dr. Thanu that the patient suddenly developed fits and convulsion.

11. The further case of the complainant is that the patient died in the M.L. Hospital itself at 12.15 a.m. As against this the case of the opposite party is that the patient died at 1.15 a.m., when he was being shifted to Jayasekharan Hospital which had better facilities for treatment. As regards this also the only solitary evidence of the complainant (PW1) against which there is contra evi

dence of the 1st opposite party Dr. Thanu (RW3) and the 4th opposite party Dr. Maria John Joseph (RW 2). We find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of RW 3 and RW 2. It is true that after the patient died the dead body was taken to his native place in a car by the 1st opposite party (RW 3) and 4th opposite party (RW 2) alongwith the wife of the deceased. Regarding this too the opposite party No. 1 (RW 3) and opposite party No. 4 (RW 2) have given evidence stating that at the request of the complainant they accompanied the dead body from Dr. Jayasekharan Hospital to the native place of the deceased which was about 15 kms away. In these circumstances, we do not think that the opposite parties 1 to 4 accompanying the dead body to the native place of the deceased would in any way improve the case of the complainant that the opposite parties were deficient in service and on account of that her husband died. 12. Considering all these we hold the view that the complainant has failed to satisfactorily prove the alleged negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 13. In the result, therefore the complaint has to be dismissed. We order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.