Sympathising with an Infosys engineer, Prashanth S Dhananka (38), who was paralysed during a tumour removal surgery
NEW DELHI: Sympathising with an Infosys engineer, Prashanth S Dhananka (38), who was paralysed during a tumour removal surgery, the supreme court slammed Hyderabad-based Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) for “criminal negligence”.
Dhananka, a mechanical engineer, had allegedly developed paralysis in the lower portion of his body during a tumour removal operation in 1990 at NIMS.
“What type of duty they (institute) are discharging? You have not taken the basic precaution. That shows your criminal negligence,” a bench of justices BN Aggarwal and G S Singhvi observed during the arguments. Hearing Dhananka’s plea seeking a compensation of Rs7.5 crore, the bench said, “His talent is wasted. He is a national property.” According to Dhananka, despite his crippled life, he is annually earning Rs18 lakh, but claims his earnings would have been four-fold had he not developed paralysis.
The apex court observed that the NIMS was criminally negligent in not obtaining the consent of the patient and for failing to consult a neurosurgeon before resorting to surgery.
Dhananka’s case is that while pursuing his third-year engineering course on September 19, 1990, he had approached the government-aided hospital to detect the frequent cause of his fever. Subsequent investigations revealed that he was suffering from a benign tumour in his chest which called for conducting a thoracotomy (process for removing tumours).
Dhananka claimed that the thoracotomy resulted in heavy bleeding in his body as his spinal chord was damaged by the cardiothorasiac surgeon. Hospital authorities summoned the hospital’s director and professor of neuro-surgery to control it.
The apex court agreed with Dhananka’s plea that his bright future has been snuffed out by the institute due to its alleged negligence. The bench rejected the institute’s plea which stated that it had taken the patient’s consent before performing surgery. If that was so, the bench said, the institute should produce the consent letter signed by the patient.
NIMS counsel Anil Kumar was, however, unable to accede to the apex court’s directive for producing the so-called consent letter.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}