Case: Dr. Sathy M. Pillay &amp; Another Vs. S. Sharma &amp; Others

2. It would be necessary to briefly state the facts for the disposal of this case. One Chandrakala (deceased), aged about 25 years, was the wife of the first complainant i.e. respondent No. 1 herein. She was admitted in the hospital of the appellant herein for encirclement of the cervix so as to prevent future miscarriage. The operation was carried out on 23.05.1996. As aprocedure, appellant no. 2, who is a skin specialist and has undergone training for administering anesthesia in Medical College Thiruvananthapuram, tried to give spinal anesthesia. However, it is to be noted that the surgery was carried out after giving local anesthesia. Around 6 p.m., after the operation, the deceased complained to one Dr. Narayanan that she was suffering unbearable pain due to the suture. At midnight, complainants heard loud cries of Chandrakala. It is to be noted that even on the second day, the parents and the husband were not allowed to see her. Thereafter Dr. Ajay Kumar, family doctor of the respondents herein, was not permitted to see her. Ultimately on 25.05.1996 at about 11.30 A.M. she expired. Thereafter, the post mortem was conducted. In the post mortem report, the doctor has opined as under:3. Based on thefinding and results of Laboratory examination, I furnish my final opinion asfindings are consistent with death due to shock following spinal anesthesia.nt filed a petition before the State Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/for the death of Chandrakala due to the medical negligence of the appellants. The State Commission on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that there was a medical negligence on the part of the appellant and awarded Rs. 3,00,000/as compensation for the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Commission, the complainant filed first appeal before NCDRC. It is to be noted that NCDRC, by a well considered judgment, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3,00,000/to Rs. 6,00,000/with 10% interest. Aggrieved by the order of NCDRC, appellants are in appeal before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
8. There is no dispute as to the fact that a young healthy woman of 25 years had died in the hospital without any ailment in the course of a minor surgery. Even according to learned counsel for the appellant, the surgery was smooth and there was no complication arose out of the surgery. It is another admitted fact that, even though she was under the supervision of the appellants, her condition progressively detoriated ultimately leading to her death. Nevertheless it is borne out of the records that appellant no. 2 is not specialized in the administration of anesthesia. Moreover the factual finding, that the death was caused due to shock following spinal anesthesia, being a reasonable inference from the material available on record, has attained finality and remains unshaken by virtue of concurrent findings of the courts below. We are aware of the fact that certain medical experts have testified that the death due to shock following spinal anesthesia could not have happened in the emergent facts. The argument of the appellant, that the death could not have occurred in the manner as suggested in the post mortem report, cannot be accepted, as the consumer forums/courts are at liberty to reject the evidence of the medical expert on scrutinizing and evaluating the relevant evidences and other circumstances in order to adjudicate the appropriate standard of care required in cases of medical negligence arising from administration of anesthesia.9. It is to be noted that no reasons are forth coming, from the appellants, about the cause of the death. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellants had the obligation to care for the deceased, which it has been found to be in dereliction of. Nevertheless incompetence and inexperience of the doctor coupled with the fact that the appellants have failed to handle the crisis, clearly points to the negligence on the part of the appellants.10. We are of the opinion that in facts and circumstances, both the state commission as well as NCDRC, after an elaborate consideration, have reached to a right conclusion that the appellants were negligent and accordingly, compensation was awarded at a reasonable amount of Rs.