1. This appeal is filed by the Government of A.P. through the District Collector, Warangal, (Defendant No.1) aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 11.07.2003, passed in O.S.No.263 of 2000 on the file of the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
2. Appellant herein is defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are plaintiffs and respondents 6 and 7 are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The backdrop of the case leading to filing of this appeal is as under:
Plaintiffs being the wife, daughters and parents of one Bheemuni Sammaiah filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.
Brief averments of the plaint are as under:
As per the incentive given by the Government, the said Sammaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) attended the Vasectomy Operation Camp on 04.09.1998 and undergone family planning operation and after the operation when the deceased got up for receiving the amount, which the Government announced as incentive, there was heavy bleeding and that defendants 2 and 3 (Doctors) again sutured the wound and sent the deceased to his village. As the deceased was not properly treated, he developed fever, itching sensation and rashes all over the body and that he was taken to Primary Health Centre, Bhupalapally, but the doctors without administering any medicine, sent away the deceased. When the condition of the deceased became serious, he was brought to Parkal hospital, but the doctor at Parkal refused to admit the deceased and on the next day, he was again taken to Bhupalpally hospital, where he was advised to take rest. Thereafter, the deceased died on 12.09.1998 due to the rash and negligent acts of the doctors/defendants 2 and 3. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the plaintiffs lost their earning member and therefore, they are entitled for compensation from the defendants with interest.
4. Defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement, which was adopted by defendant No.1, denying the allegations levelled against them. It is stated that they came to know that the deceased was expired after 8 days of the operation. The then District Medical and Health Officer, Dr.Surender Reddy, conducted an enquiry about the cause of death. The enquiry report was placed before the Quality Assurance Committee on 23.07.1999, which reveals that wound was healthy, there was no hemotoma and there was no infection. It is further stated that the deceased instead of going to MGM hospital, Warangal, went to his house without taking proper medical care or advice, which caused his death on 12.09.1998. Doctors have taken all precautions while conducting the operations on that day. It is further stated that on humanitarian ground, the Government paid Rs.10,000/- to the family of the deceased as ex gratia. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.
6. The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and the respective contentions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side, decreed the suit in part with costs for Rs.1,00,000/- payable by defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at 10% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, inter alia, contending that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the deceased Sammaiah died on account of negligence on the part of the appellant as well as respondents 6 and 7 herein is totally without any basis and contrary to the evidence on record. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence as regards contributory negligence covered under issue No.3 though the appellant and respondents 6 and 7 specifically pleaded in the written statement to the effect that the deceased has not taken proper medical care after operation as advised by the doctors. The trial Court has not properly appreciated Ex.B1, wherein the Quality Assurance Committee in its meeting opined that death was not due to vasectomy surgery, but on account of pain in abdomen and that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. The findings recorded by the trial Court runs contrary to the medical evidence on record. Even according to the chemical examination of viscera, the death was not on account of infection developed after the surgery. The trial Court should have seen that the liability of the appellant is not traceable to any law and as such fastening the liability on the appellant is totally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the compensation and interest granted by the trial Court is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, he requested the Court to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court.
8. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.
9. The Point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the trial Court is on proper appreciation of facts or not?
10. Perusal of the record would reveal that after vasectomy operation, the deceased Sammaiah approached the hospital as he developed rashes all over the body and that he was administered some medicine and thereafter he was referred to Parkal hospital, but he died on 12.09.1998. As per Ex.B2-Post Mortem report, there was bandage around the scrotum and the scrotum was opened, but no hematoma was present. Ex.B3 is the final report issued by the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, wherein she opined that due to infection of testis, the deceased died. Vasectomy operation was conducted around scrotum where testis is located. The District Immunization Officer, who was examined as D.W.1, did not state what was the post operative care taken by him on the deceased soon after the operation to prevent infection. He stated that Dr.Chakrapani referred the deceased to Civil hospital, Parkal. Dr.B.Venkat Laxmi-D.W.2 stated in her cross-examination that four days after vasectomy operation, the deceased was referred to Civil Hospital, Parkal by defendant No.2 and at that time, the deceased complained that he was suffering from fever, pain, rashes all over the body. She admitted that there was possibility of wound infection of vasectomy extending to testicles. The wife of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.1, stated in her evidence that from the next day of operation when the deceased suffered with high fever and allergy all over the body, they visited the hospital and the said fact was corroborated by the evidence of D.W.2 and Ex.B1. The trial Court held that the defendants failed to take reasonable care to prevent infection being caused to the wound by prescribing appropriate medicine and they have not taken any post operative care and due to that negligence on their part the deceased got infected and died. The trial Court also dealt with the issue regarding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and observed that it is not the case of defendants 2 and 3 that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Considering the earnings of the deceased at Rs.7,200/- per year as agriculture labourer and as he was aged 25 years on the date of incident and also the payment of Rs.10,000/-towards ex gratia, the trial Court granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest at 10% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.
11. D.W.2, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, clearly stated in the cross-examination that except the chronic infection in the testicles, the deceased was not suffering with any other disease. She also stated that if the patient was suffering with any type of disease in the testicles, the vasectomy operation would not be conducted. She further stated that there was possibility of wound infection of vasectomy extended to the testicles.
12. Ex.B1 is the report of the Quality Assurance Committee held on 23.07.1999 under the Chairmanship of Superintendent, MGM Hospital, Warangal and five other doctors, which reads as under:
“Sri Bheemini Sammaiah, H/o B.Sammakka, r/o Manjeerpally, hamlet of Ramulapally of Bhopalpally Mandal, undergone Vasectomy operation in the camp of PHC Bhupalpally on 04.09.1998 and died on 12.09.1998.
Findings of Q.A.C.
After perusal of enquiry report, vasectomy site wound was healthy, no hematoma, no sign of infection. After 6th post operative day patient developed rash and pain in abdomen and reported to Civil Hospital, Parkal, then they have given preliminary treatment and referred to MGM Hospital, Warangal, even after referring he has not gone to MGM Hospital, Warangal and went back to his home and died on 12.09.1998. Case was sent for postmortem, examination report is pending for chemical analysis of Viscera. We concluded the surgery is not related to death as there is wound and it was healthy, no hematoma (as postmortem report), therefore, it is not related to Vasectomy surgery and might be due to other cause.”
13. Perusal of the aforesaid report reveals that after 6th post operative day, the deceased developed rash and pain in abdomen and he was referred to Civil Hospital, Parkal, and from there to MGM Hospital, Warangal and thereafter he was shifted to his house and died on 12.09.1998. It is mentioned in Ex.B1 that chemical analysis report was pending. Some of the doctors stated that there was no negligence on the part of doctors and the death of the deceased was not due to complications of operation. Vasectomy operation was conducted on 04.09.1998 and the deceased died on 12.09.1998 i.e., within eight days of the operation. Immediately after the operation, P.W.1 took the deceased to hospital, but he was not treated properly and they simply advised him to take bed rest and as such he died within eight days of the operation. There are several variations in the enquiry report and it appears that they are trying to cover up their lapses. No doubt, on that particular day, 40 operations were conducted. But, in this case, the complications arose immediately after the operation and when there was heavy bleeding from the wound, he was again sutured and he was sent back to his village. At least at that time, the doctors should have kept him on observation without discharging him from the hospital, or on the next day when he was brought to the hospital, they should have taken proper care and paid attention to him personally. Further, they have not taken any post operative care on the deceased soon after the operation to prevent infection, it clearly amounts to negligence on the part of defendants 2 and 3. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the trail Court and it needs no interference.
Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment and decree, dated 11.07.2003, passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.263 of 2000. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
