Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

970/2009

M.Yasmin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aarthi Advanced C.T.Scan & MRI & another - Opp.Party(s)

R.Sreedhar

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                               Date of Filing  : 12.11.2009

                                                                                                                     Date of Order : 10.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT                              

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                      :  MEMBER-I

C.C. NO.970 /2009

TUESDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

                                              

M. Yasmin,

Old No.11/144,

Fakir Sahib Street,

Triplicane,

Chennai – 600 005.                                                 .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

1. AARTHI ADVANCED C.T. SCAN & MRI,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.17, C.V. Raman Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai  -600 018.

 

2. Dr. Abhishek Prasad,

C/o. AARTHI ADVANCED C.T. SCAN & MRI,

No.17, C.V. Raman Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai  -600 018.                                         … Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant                  :  M/s. R. Sreedhar & another                                                     

Counsel for 1^st opposite party         :  M/s. B. Sundar & another

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party        :  Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to pay a sum of Rs.7,05,800/- for the medical negligence, cost of taking scan, transportation, inconvenience, difficulty, strain, loss, pain and suffering and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant suffered from FIBROID UTERUS and undergone treatment for the said disease by Dr.Mrs. S. Rasheeda at Chennai and the complainant was advised to undergo an operation for removal of uterus.   Accordingly, the complainant was referred to Vita Diagnostics Limited for taking Ultrasound study of Abdomen and Pelvis.  While taking the ultrasound study on 18.04.2007, the Vita Diagnostics limited made an impression that the complainant was having “BULKY UTERUS WITH HUGE FUNDAL FIBROID.  LIVER, GALL BLADDER, SPLEEN, PANCREAS, KIDNEYS, RIGHT OVARY URINARY BLADDER AND RETROPERITONEUM APPEAR NORMAL”.   Accordingly the complainant was admitted at Billroth Hospital, R.A. Puram on 20.06.2007.  She underwent surgery TAH with LSO on 21.06.2007.  The uterus and the left side ovary were removed in the surgery and she was discharged from the hospital on 24.06.2007.     The complainant was advised to take tablets and she suffered with stomach pain during November 2007 and approached Dr. Geetha, the Dr. advised to undergo USG Abdomen at Aarthi Advanced C.T. Scan centre.

2.     On 13.11.2007, the 2^nd opposite party examined her abdomen and taken ultrasound and made observations over her liver, Gall Bladder, Pancreas, Spleen, Kidneys, Bladder, Uterus, Ovaries, P.O.D., RIF and Retroperitoneum. The observations made with regard to uterus and ovaries in the report given by the Aarthi Advanced C.T. Scan Centre, Alwarpet Branch is as follows:

“Uterus:

Measured 6.2 x 3.4 x 2.1 cms. Anteverted.

Myometrium shows normal ecdhgenicity.

Endometrium is regular.

No focal lesion is seen.

Ovaries:

Both ovaries are normal in size”

The impression given in the report is as follows:

“Normal Sonographic study of Liver, GB, Pancreas, Spleen, Both kidneys, Bladder, Uterus and adnexa”.

3.     The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive a report and as she has underwent surgery on TAH with LSO on 21.06.2007.  The said report was signed and issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant was put to mental shock and suffering after seeing the report and went to the 1^st opposite party’s scan centre and enquired about the given report.  But she was not given proper response.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to medical negligence and careless treatment.  The complainant approached Bharat Scans and underwent Ultrasonography of Abdomen .  In the report given by Bharat Scan an observation made on 25.06.2008, it was stated in the report that “Uterus could not be visualized (Consistent with history of surgery) Right ovary measures 45 x 32 x 19 mms (Vol-14 ml).   Left ovary could not be visualized”.

4.     The complainant has also taken subsequent scan while undergoing treatment for her illness on various dates such as on 25.06.2008, 29.01.2009, 06.03.2009 and on all such occasions, the report issued by Bharat Scans had the same impression with regard to uterus as follows: “Uterus could not be visualized (Consistent with history of surgery).  Left ovary could not be visualized”.  The complainant submits that at the time of taking scan in the Aarthi Advanced C.T. Scan centre at Alwarpet Branch on 13.11.2007, the 2^nd opposite party did not take proper care and observation while  making the report.    The complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties dated:15.10.2009 claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.7,05,800/- for the medical negligence and the opposite parties sent a reply dated:24.10.2009 admitting the mistake done in issuing the report.  But the opposite parties claim the report to be “a minor mistake of administrative staff of handing over the report with typographical error”, which is not acceptable.  Hence the complaint.

5.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   It is admitted that the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party on 13.11.2007 for taking an abdominal scan, which was taken by one of their visiting Doctors.  However, the Scan-report dated:13.11.2007  contained references to the complainant’s uterus and Ovaries due to a typographical error and not due to the wrong procedure followed in scanning or wrong reporting.  The 1^st opposite party realizing the delivery of the said wrongly typed report, had  several times called the complainant and reminded her to collect the correctly typed Report dated:13.11.2007 but she did not arrive nor arrange to collect the same from the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party sent a reminder letter dated:16.11.2007 to the complainant for which too she never turned up at the 1^st opposite party scan centre.   Then the 1^st opposite party sent a reminder letter dated:27.11.2007 under Certificate of Posting to the complainant’s above address to ensure proper delivery of the correctly typed Report to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party submits that in view of the above facts no medical negligence has been committed by it and the complainant has not actually suffered any loss, mental agony, pain and suffering as alleged in para. no.16 of the complaint and hence need not be compensated at all by the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has only taken a scan for mere Rs.800/- only and there could be no justification to claim an exorbitant compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.     Inspite of receipt of notice the 2^nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and therefore the opposite parties were set exparte.  

In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 marked on the side of the  1^st opposite party.

7.      The point for consideration before the Forum is:

Whether the complainant  entitled for a sum of Rs.7,05,800/- towards medical negligence including scan charges, transportation, mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

8.      On point:

Both complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective written arguments.   Heard the 1^st Opposite party Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that while she was suffering from FIBROID UTERUS, she undergone treatment with Dr. S. Rasheeda.  On the advice of the Doctor, the complainant undergone an operation on 21.06.2007 for removal of uterus by Dr. M. Geetha, M.D., DGO., Ex.A1 is the letter issued by the Dr. Rasheeda, Ex.A2 is the Ultra sound Scan report related to abdomen and pelvis showing “BULKY UTERUS WITH HUGE FUNDAL FIBROID.  LIVER, GALL BLADDER, SPLEEN, PANCREAS, KIDNEYS, RIGHT OVARY URINARY BLADDER AND RETROPERITONEUM APPEAR NORMAL”.  Ex.A3 is the case history, Ex.A4 is the surgical report, Ex.A5 is the discharge summary dated: 24.06.2007.   Further the complainant pleaded and contended that, while continuing post operative treatment  and reviewing with Dr. Geetha Mahadevan, suddenly the complainant suffered with stomach pain, during the month of November 2007.  At that time, Dr.Geetha advised to undergo USG  abdomen at Aaarthi advanced CT scan centre. 

9.     Accordingly the complainant went to Aaarthi CT scan centre  Alwarpet Branch on 13.11.2007, the 2^nd opposite party Dr.Abhishek Prasad examined the complainant and  taken ultra sound and gave report Ex.A6 with the following observations:

 

“Uterus:

Measured 6.2 x 3.4 x 2.1 cms. Anteverted.

Myometrium shows normal ecdhgenicity.

Endometrium is regular.

No focal lesion is seen.

Ovaries:

Both ovaries are normal in size”

The impression given in the report is as follows:

“Normal Sonographic study of Liver, GB, Pancreas, Spleen, Both kidneys, Bladder, Uterus and adnexa”.

While seeing the report,  the complainant was shocked and surprised that she had undergone surgery on TAH with LSO on 21.06.2007, but the report issued by the 2^nd opposite party  Dr.Abhishek Prasad put to great mental shock.  Hence the complainant was constrained to approach Bharat Scans and underwent Ultrasonography of abdomen on 25.06.2008, 29.01.2009 06.03.2009 respectively as per Ex.A7, Ex.A8 and Ex. A9.  The report reads as follows:  “Uterus could not be visualized (Consistent with history of surgery).  Left ovary could not be visualized”.  Further the complainant contended that, the observations given by the opposite parties 1 and 2 are incorrect and it will prove  the gross negligence muchless, medical negligence beyond reasonable doubt.  The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 800/- towards the cost of the CT Scan Rs.5000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony and Rs.5 lakhs towards medical negligence.  But the complainant has not produced any record or substantial evidence to prove the alleged mental agony and the quantum of medical negligence in the manner known to law.  Moreso, admittedly the complainant has not acted on the basis of the report and observation of the opposite parties. 

10.    The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the complainant approached this opposite party on 13-11-2007 for taking  abdominal scan,  the visiting doctor of the 1^st opposite party took the scan and submitted the report  containing the references related to the complainant’s uterus and ovaries; due to typographical error and not of the wrong procedure in scanning.  The complainant also has not whispered anything related to the procedure followed while taking the scan.   However the administrative staff of the opposite parties without understanding the delicacy of the situation  issued the wrong report.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that, immediately on the next day the 1^st opposite party contacted the complainant and requested to bring down the report dated:13-11-2007 in order to issue the corrected report as per EX.B1 and Ex.B2.  The complainant without surrendering the report and without hearing 1^st opposite party filed this case claiming huge amount of compensation for no damage muchless no harm caused either physically or mentally by the error report.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.B2 & Ex.B3 there is no evidence  on record to prove the said communications. 

11.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the cost of the scan is only for Rs.800/- claiming a sum of Rs.5000/- towards transportation charges for 5kms without any record cannot be permitted, but the opposite party has not explained how the travel of  5 kms arrived.  Equally the claim of compensation is imaginary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the  considered view that, the opposite parties 1 and 2 after taking the Ultrasound Scan issued, false report, which caused mental agony for which, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.800/- towards the cost of the scan, Rs.2000/- towards the transportation charges with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- .

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) towards charges for taking C.T. Scan & MRI scan, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards transportation charges and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only)  towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^TH day of April 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                               PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of Letter issued by Dr. Mrs. S. Rasheeda
		Copy of Ultra Sound Scan taken at Vita Diagnostics Limited
		Copy of case History of the complainant by Dr. M. Geetha
		Copy of the History Chart of the complainant at Billroth Hospital, R.A. Puram
		Copy of the Discharge summary of the complainant at Chennai Kaliappa Hospital
		Copy of the Ultra sound scan taken at Aarthi Advanced C.T. Scan & MRI (Opposite party)
		Copy of Ultra Sound Scan taken at Bharat Scans
		Copy of Ultra Sound Scan taken at Bharat Scans
		Copy of Ultra Sound Scan taken at Bharat Scans
		Copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties
		Copy of reply notice made by the opposite parties.

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

		Copy of retyped Ultra Sound scan Report
		Copy of intimation letter sent to the complainant by the 1st opposite party
		Copy of reminder letter sent by the 1st opposite party under Certificate of Posting to the complainant
		Copy of postal evidence for Certificate of Posting
		Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant
		Copy of reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party
		Copy of certificate of incorporation

  

 

MEMBER –I                                                               PRESIDENT