Facts
- The plaintiff was a brilliant young student of 17 years, suffering from chronic nasal discharge, which the ENT surgeon diagnosed as “nasal allergy” and suggested removal of tonsils.
- After the operation at Guntur he became unconscious and remained so for three days. Subsequently, he became conscious, but he lost “all the knowledge and learning acquired by him”.
- His father consulted two eminent doctors, one a neuro−surgeon and the other a psychiatrist and found that the operation had caused the patient cerebral damage and now his intellectual ability was that of a child of five years.
- The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendants for performing tonsillectomy operation on him carelessly. He sued the Government of Andhra Pradesh (first defendant). the ENT surgeon at the Government General Hospital, Guntur (second defendant) and chief anesthetist of the hospital (third defendant). A suit for damages for Rs. 50,000/− was filed.
Issues before the Court
- The issue presented before The High Court of Andhra Pradesh was whether there had been breach of duty of care on the part of the surgeon and anesthetist in government hospital or not.
Principles
- Vicarious liability − Medical negligence
- the High Court held
- that both the second and third defendants had been guilty of negligence as they failed to conduct the surgery with proper standard of care and caused severe harm to the plaintiff.
- The second defendant (the operating surgeon), although an experienced specialist, did not conform to the standards of conduct expected of an ordinary surgeon. As regards the third defendant (anesthetist).
- With reference to the first defendant (the state government), the court held that it was vicariously liable.
- It relied on several English cases in this behalf, the last one being Cassidy v. Ministry of Health. Applying the rule laid down in an earlier case, Lord Denning laid down that authorities who run a hospital, whether they are local authorities or government board or any other corporation, are under the self−same duty as the humblest deter to use reasonable care and skill
- The trial court had awarded to the plaintiff Rs. 22000 as damages which the High Court increased to Rs. 50000. In fact, the High Court would have increased it to a much higher amount, but the plaintiff had claimed only Rs. 50000/−.
The tragedy which struck him at the age of 17 in the form of irreversible cerebral anoxia made his life a permanent nightmare. He has no happiness or pleasure for the rest of his life. He is, therefore, entitled to substantial damages under the head “loss of amenities” which in the circumstances, I estimate at Rs. 2 lakhs.
