Telangana High Court
The Govt. Of A.P., Through The District ... vs Bheemuni Sammakka, on 15 March, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.349 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
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
PSS, J
A.S.No.349 of 2008
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
PSS, J
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
PSS, J
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.
PSS, J
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
PSS, J
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?
PSS, J
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
PSS, J
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
PSS, J
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
PSS, J
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
PSS, J
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
PSS, J
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.
_______________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
15.03.2024
Gsn.
