DOF.17.7.2006

DOO.19.2. 2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the  19^th day of  February   2011

CC.169/2006

     K.Radha,   

    D/o.Chathu,

    ‘Sreyas’,

    Mamgattidam Amsom, Desom,              Complainant

    Thalassery.

    (Rep. by Adv.R.Satheesh Babu) 

1. Administrator,

    Koyili Hospital,Kannur.

    P.O.Pallikkunnu.

2.Dr.S.C.Bantwal,

   Consultant Doctor,

   Koyili Hospital,Kannur.

   P.O.Pallikkunnu.

   (Rep. by Adv.P.Mahamood)                          Opposite parties

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay  `4,50,000 as compensation  with cost of this proceedings.

          The case of the complainant in brief are as follows: Complainant treated from co-op. Hospital, Thalassery for back pain till 22.2.02. There after CT scan was taken from there on 11.4.02 .But following  increased severe pain she was admitted in the hospital of 1^st opposite party on 23.10.02 and subject to an emergent operation on the same day by 2^nd opposite party. She was made believe that there was some damage to the vertebral column and it can be cured only by surgery and surgery was conducted.  She was discharged after 9 days i.e. on 1.11.02. The very next day of operation 2^nd opposite party asked complainant to get up and stand, so she tried to standup for sometime. Then immediately after some time she was developed temperature.  More over the pain she suffered earlier before the operation felt continued to be remained unchanged. She was suffering fever even at the time of discharge on 1.11.02 after 9 days. 2nd opposite party advised her that fever will be alright gradually while taking medicine continuously from the house. But pain and fever continued to be existed. She approached 2^nd opposite party on 10.1.02 again. She was immediately admitted and started treatment. Treatment was started for fever and pain. But there was no development even though treatment was taken the whole month of January. Hence the 2^nd opposite party conducted operation again. But there was no result At the time of operation on 23.10.02 because of the negligence on the part of 2^nd opposite party, infection was developed in the injuries of complainant. That was the reason for the development of the fever.It was only due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party, such an incident was happened. After the 2^nd  surgery in the month of January complainant was treated as  inpatient up to  28.2.03. Since thee was no progress she was discharged on 28.12.03. Complainant is still suffering from the consequences and she is not able to walk or even to stand up. She has been wholly laid up.  The life of the complainant has been destroyed by the negligent act of 2^nd opposite party. Hence opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the complainant.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version separately. The brief facts of the version filed by1st opposite party are as follows:- Complaint is barred by limitation period  of 2 years. The complainant was discharged from Koyili Hospital on 28.2.03 and the complaint was filed on 17.7.06 long after 3 ½ years. So the complaint has to be dismissed.

          There is no element of truth in the story of complainant with respect to the deterioration of her health due to infection after surgery, if that was so she would have sought the help of any other consultant of her choice in some other hospital. She filed the complaint out of speculation. It is not correct to say that she had fever from the very next day of surgery. It is also not correct to say that there was mistake on the part of 2^nd opposite party in doing surgery and there was lack of cleanliness of the operation theatre of the 1^st opposite party. In the condonation petition the main allegation of the complainant was that she had infectious due to  the lack of care on the part of 2^nd opposite party in conducting  surgery and the 1^st opposite party is vicariously liable for the same. There was absolutely no negligence or lack of care on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in conducting the surgery or on providing the facilities for the same. Post operative infection can occur in surgeries conducted even in much advance centre because it is an expected complication which can occur in 2 to 20% cases in spite of all the precautions taken, depending upon the immunological status of the individual and the compliance on the part of the patient to follow the various instructions to be followed after the surgery. Apart from infection that occurred after she was discharged from the hospital as indicated by temperature chart of the two periods of stay in the 1^st opposite party’s hospital, she did not have any   complaint with regard to the type of nursing care or even the nature of surgery she has undergone. About 4 years after surgery she had filed a complaint on the basis of some frivolous allegations with the sole intention of extracting money from the opposite party. 1^st opposite party is a reputed hospital in the district having highly qualified and experienced staff working in various specialist filed. Dr.Bantwal who treated the complainant is a reputed Neurosurgeon and he qualified from Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh. He is also a professor of Neurosurgery at Mangalore. He has an excellent academic experience. Prior to the treatment in the hospital of 1^st opposite party complainant was treated by another Neurosurgeon at her own home town at Thalassery for a period of 8 months  and  when surgery was suggested  she opted to  get it done by Dr.Bantwal  in the 1^st opposite party’s hospital to her profound faith and respect to him. Complainant reported to the 1st opposite party hospital on 23.10.02 for a Neurosurgical consultation with Dr.Bantwal and she was brought in a wheel-chair supported by her husband. . An immediate consultation was arranged and as per the instructions of Dr.Bantwal a basic investigations were carried out on an emergency basis. She was advised surgery as her condition was deteriorated day by day. She agreed for the surgery because of the unbearable back pain and other distressing symptoms, operation was conducted on the same day.  The 1^st opposite party hospital has 5 operation theatres, one exclusiviely for neurosurgery alone. After getting an informed consent from the patient and her husband pre-anaesthesia check up was arranged and the O.T was made ready with all the equipments properly sterilized under the supervision of senior O.T nursing Supervisory staff. The gas and Oxygen were also checked with adequate number of spare cylinders ready for use. She was taken up for surgery on the same day evening and Dr.Bantwal ably assisted by qualified and experienced staff completed the surgery successfully. She was kept in the O.T itself under the close observation of the Anaesthetist until she recovered from anaesthesia and she was shifted to the Post operative ward after recovery. Post operative instructions given by Dr.Bantwal were meticulously carried out and periodically her temperature, pulse rate, respiratory rate, B.P etc. were taken and charted. There was no rise of temperature during the post operative period and the next day Dr. Bantwal made her to get up which she did confidently. Except for some pain on the site of operation she did not have any complaint with regard to surgery. Her  condition was assessed daily both by the duty RMO as well as the ward staff periodically apart from the routine ward rounds by Dr.Bantwal and there was absolutely no rise of temperature or any untoward symptom reported. As the post operative period was uneventful her sutures were removed on the 7^th day itself as it is done routinely and she was discharged on 1.11.02 with advice to continue antibiotics for another 5 days.  She was also advised to report for follow-up after six days i.e. on 7.11.02 or earlier if she had any untoward symptom or discomfort. As she did not have any complaint, she did not report on the day advised.  But she reported on 10.11.02 admittedly with complaints of fever.  An immediate consultation by Dr.Bantwal  was arranged and after examination she was admitted. She was found to have infection at the site of surgery and she was put on antibiotics to which she was found to be allergic. So she was put on second line of antibiotics and daily dressing was done by Dr.Bantwal himself. As she was not responding to the treatment satisfactorily Dr.Bantwal decided to do wound debridement under Anaesthesia.  After getting informed consent the same was done under strict aseptic precautions. She was put on appropriate antibiotics post operatively which were administered as instructed and she was discharged on 28.2.03 with minimum pain at the site of surgery and no fever. The allegation of the complainant that she had fever due to infection the very next day of operation was absolutely baseless and her temperature remained normal till she was discharged on 1.11.02. The allegation that adequate precautions were not taken by the 1^st opposite party before she was subjected to surgery was absolutely baseless. Adequate aseptic precautions are taken before each surgery however minor it is. The complainant did not make any complaint about the nursing care she received in the opposite party’s hospital during the entire period of her stay and the only complaint, the complainant had was about the infection which she actually contracted at home after  she was discharged on 1.11.02. The entire allegations were the result of some guess work. It was not true that she was discharged 2^nd time because there was no improvement in her condition.  She was discharged only hen her infection was completely under control and the temperature remained normal for some days before discharge.   If the allegation of the complainant was true that there was no improvement of her condition when he was discharged on 28.2.03  she  would have  definitely  sought the advice of another consultant. She did not get any other treatment after she was discharged from the 1^st opposite party’s hospital. There was absolutely no negligence or carelessness on the part of opposite parties in treating the complainant. The 1^st  opposite party is not  liable to pay any compensation. It is not true that she had spent for `1 lakh for her treatment she has not produced any bill or voucher to substantiate her claim. She was given maximum concessions  and free medicines after surgery collecting samples from the various  consultants. The complaint she has filed is based on some speculations hence to dismiss the case.

          2nds opposite party filed version separately contending as follows: the complaint is not maintainable since it exceed the limitation period of 2 years as the cause of action is admittedly on 23.10.2002,the date  of surgery done to her by the 2^nd opposite party. It is not true that she is totally incapacitated, if that be so she would have definitely sought advice from either the opposite party or any other consultant. The 2^nd opposite party is the consultant Neuro Surgeon working in the 1^st opposite party Hospital and also the Professor of Neuro Surgery in Mangalore.  He is specialized in the field of Neuro Surgery from PGI Chandigarh and he is visiting consultant in many universities abroad.  The complainant was admitted in co-operative hospital, Thalasery for back-ache and was treated there from 22.2.02 to 26.2.02 unsuccessfully. There after she was taken to 1^st  opposite party hospital and continued treatment there. On 11.4.02 she had C.T Scan of the Spine which showed compression of the spinal nerve root between L4-L5 due to protruding inter-vertebral disc.  She was advised surgery, she had not only severe pain but also progressive weakness of both lower limbs with numbness.  She could hardly stand up and on 23.10.02 she was brought to the 2^nd opposite party in the  1^st opposite party hospital in a wheel chair  by her husband  explaining  all about the investigations and treatment taken so far.  As the pain became unbearable and the weakness was progressing due to the compression of the spinal nerve root, immediate surgery was indicated and she and her husband were explained about the benefits, limitations and risks involved in the surgery planned. After obtaining the informed consent she was posted for surgery namely Laminectomy and Disctomy under general anaesthesia on the same day. Koyili Hospital has separate theatre for neuro surgery with 4 separate operation theatres for other surgical procedures. The operation theater is fumigated after surgery. The linen and surgical instruments are properly sterilized strictly under the supervision of highly qualified Nursing Supervising staff and under all aseptic precautions for a spinal microsurgery; she was operated under general anaesthesia on the evening of 23.10.02. The surgery was successful and she was given prophylactic antibiotic post operatively. She improved rapidly and she was made to sit up on the following day. There was no fever during the post-operative period as alleged and she was happy with the relief of distressing symptoms she was bearing all these months. Sutures were removed on the 7^th day and she was discharged on 1.11.2002 with advice to continue the antibiotics for another five days and other medicines for six days. She was also advised to report for follow up after six days, i.e. on 7.11.2002. The allegations of the complainant that she developed fever after she was made to sit up and that she continued pain in a same manner as before was not true. She does not have any rise of temperature during the entire post-operative period and except for a slight pain on the site of surgery. She did not have excruciating pain as she felt before surgery. The allegation of the 2^nd  opposite party  consoled her during the time of discharge with regard to fever was also not true. If she had fever at the time of discharge, no doctor would discharge her until the temperature remained normal at least for two or three consecutive days. If she had excruciating pain as she had before surgery, she would not have left the hospital with satisfaction. The very fact that she did not report for follow up on the day advised i.e.  on 7.11.2002 also shows that she did not have any symptom that warranted immediate attention of a doctor. She reported  to the 2^nd opposite party on 10.11.02 with complaints of pain and fever and on examination  she had signs of infection, probably due to improper hygiene and not taking appropriate medication as advised. She was suspected to have Discitis for which she was admitted and put on medication and rest in the hospital as per standard international protocol for such suspected infection. Unfortunately she developed an allergy to the standard best antibiotics group. So she was put on second line of antibiotics. Further investigation revealed no improvement in the infection and after explaining the need for debridement and direct application of antibiotics at the site of infection, she was operated for debridement on 14.1.03. She was put on antibiotics post operatively for a prescribed time and was discharged on 28.2.03 with minimal pain and no fever. At each state of surgery her condition was microscopically assessed and with utmost care surgery was completed.  She was made to get up on the very next day of surgery because of the utmost care taken during surgery.  At every stage of surgery the  2^nd opposite party was alert to avoid any complication that can occur   during such a delicate surgery. Post operative infection can occur even in much advanced centers all over the world in 2 to 20% cases in spite of the best care taken during surgery. Infection after surgery is an accepted complication and cannot be attributed to negligence on the part of the surgeon. Depending on the individual immunization status which cannot be assessed in the normal circumstances, infection can occur at varying levels. The response to treatment to infection can also vary from individual to individual. No surgeon can guarantee 100% cure of the surgery. On 28.2.2003 when the complainant was discharged her infection was well under control. Except for slight pain over the site of operation, there was no fever or any other untoward symptoms. She could sit up herself and could walk with support. The allegation of the complainant that she was completely incapacitated after surgery was not true. She never had any paralysis or deficits at any time. There was no negligence on the part of both opposite parties in treating the complainant hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is  barred by limitation?

2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in

     the complaint?

4. Relief and cost.

          The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1,PW2,DW1  and Exts.A1 toA 88, B1 and B2.

Issue No.1

          The case of the complainant is that she was admitted in the hospital of 1^st opposite party on 23.10.02. She was undergone an operation on the same day and discharged on 1.11.02 i.e. after 9days. As Pain and fever continued to existed she was again approached  2^nd opposite party on 10.11.02. Following treatment  she was subject to operation  for debridement on  14.1.03 and put on antibiotics post operatively for a prescribed time. She was then discharged on  28.2.03.

          It is seen that the complaint was filed on 17.7.2006. In other words complaint filed after 3 ½ years.   According to complainant there is a delay of 502 days. The reason for the delay according to the complainant is total disablement of the complainant. Complainant is legally liable to explain each and every day of the  delay. If the complaint is barred by time the consumer Forum is bound to dismiss the same. Unless the consumer makes out a case for condonation of delay the consumer Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the casue of action has arisen. Here  the complainant discharged from the hospital on 28.2.03 complaint is filed only on 17.7.2006.

          It is true that in case of medical negligence, no straight-jacket formula can be applied for determining as to when the cause of action has accrued to the consumer.  Each case is to be decided on its own facts. The main reason raised by the complainant in the case in hand is total disablement. At the time of filing the present complaint also the same condition of the alleged total disablement has been in existence, but she became capable of filing the present case. This capability could have been utilized before the expiry of the limitation period. It should also be taken into consideration that personal presence of the individual is not at all necessary for filing a complaint. Complaint could have been filed even by post. Secondly the power of Attorney herein is none other than her husband. Practically husband is doing everything for her. Even during the examination of the complainant her answer to many questions she stated that she wanted to ask her husband for the actual facts. In any way the presence of her husband in all her dealings is quite evident. That itself is sufficient i.e. the help of her husband seems to be actively available to her always which are large and sufficient to get assistance to file a complaint earlier within the limitation period.

          The complainant is residing at Mangattidam. She went to Kuthuparamba on 10. 8.2006 for the purpose of executing the power of attorney. If she is able to come Kuthuparamba the contention that she is totally disable is not sustainable. If she is able to go to Advocate’s office  the state of affair cannot be taken  as totally incapacitated.

          More over if the complainant was totally disabled or incapacitated there should have been further treatment from some other doctors. But there is no history of such effective treatment for all these years. She was not even hospitalized any time during these last 7 years. If the condition was worse than before the treatment it is not possible to manage without having a better treatment by some doctors. She was a patient who was operated for debridement on 14.10.2003 i.e. 8 years before. If she is capable for management for the last 8 years without serious treatment, it is difficult to say she is totally incapable,  without getting evidence to that effect. In the cross examination she was asked a question whether she had obtained any medical certificate from any doctor in order to show that she has been under such condition not capable of filing the complaint, the answer is ‘ `À¯m-hn-\mWv FÃmT Ad-nbp-¶-Xv’. Further she had admitted that as per Ext.A3 her last visit to 2^nd opposite party on 10.3.2003. She was asked the question what is the reason for the delay in filing the complaint she answered ‘AXp-hsc acp¶v Ign-¨n-«pT kpJ-an-Ãm-¯-Xp-sIm-­mWv’. To another question whether there was any other reason, her answer is ‘no’. Complainant sofar failed to supply a satisfactory answer or explanation for the delay caused for the filing of the compliant. In the case of Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bijoy Kumar & Ors. 2002(II)SCT, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the question of limitation should be considered seriously. Hon’ble Supreme court in State Bank of India Vs.  B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29(SC) held that “if the complaint is barred by  time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality. In Union of India and Another V. British India Corporation Ltd. And others, (2003) 9 SCC 50, while dealing with an aspect of limitation of an application for refund prescribed in Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, Supreme court held that the question of limitation was a mandate to the Forum and, irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the Forum must consider and apply it.

          In the case in hand, in absence of reasonable explanation why the complaint could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation we are of the view  that  the above complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thus issue No.1 is answered against complainant.

Issue No.2 to 4

          It can be seen that the complainant admitted in hospital of 1^st opposite party on 23.10.02, 2^nd opposite party doctor attend her.  Before  coming to the hospital of 1^st  opposite party she was undergone treatment from Thalassery co-op. Hospital from 22.2.02, few days as  Inpatient and Out patient there after, on 11.4.02 CT scan was also done from there. Her treatment from Thalassery co-op. hospital was not successful. Back pain increased and due to acute back pain she sought admission in 1st opposite party hospital. From where 2^nd opposite party doctor treated the complainant. According to opposite parities she was brought in wheel chair supported by her husband. Her condition also revealed by Ext.A1 with impression that “ MINIMAL DIFFUSE,9ANNULAR0 CENTRAL BULGE OF L4-l5  DISC ABUTTING THE CONTRAST FILLED THECAL SAC. Ext.A1 proves that CT scan of the spine shown compression of the spinal nerve root between L4-L5 due  to protruding inter-vertebral disc, is correct. She was rushed to 2^nd opposite party when the pain became unbearable and weakness was progressive. Hence the opinion of 2^nd opposite party that the circumstances indicated immediate surgery is a correct line of approach 2nd opposite party Dr.Bantwal, the Neurosurgeon after investigation advised surgery and obtaining consent, operation was conduct on 22.10.02. She was discharged on 1.11.02.  Ext.B2 page 15 reveals that her temperature was normal at the time of discharge. 23.10.02 to 1.11.02 her temperature was seen recorded normal. Ext.B2 page 17 also seen recorded of Luminectomy & Disctomy done. On 23.10.0-2 Ext.B2 page 9 to 14 nurses records reveals that after surgery she was put on antibiotics namely Topcef 200, Seradic, ENHANCIN & Analgesic, Ranitin, Epitoglobny etc. Complainant pleaded that “ Hm¸-td-j³ Ign-ª-Xnsâ ]ntä Znh-kT (24-þ10-þ02)-Xs¶ 2þmT FXr-I£n lc-Pn-¡m-cn-tbmSv Fgp-t¶äv \n¡m³ Bh-i-y-s¸-Sp-I-bpTlc-Pn-¡mcn AX-\p-k-cn-¡m³ {ian-¡p-I-bpT sNbvXp. AXv]-Im-cT \n¡m³ {ian¨v tFXm\pT ka-bT Ign-ªXp apX lc-Pn-¡m-cn¡v ]\n-bp-­m-bn. am{X-hp-aà  kÀP-dn¡v ap³]mbn lc-Pn-¡m-cn-¡p-­m-bn-cp¶  thZ\ hÀ²n-¨-co-Xn-bn XpS-cp-I-bpT sNbvXp. IqSmsX ]\n Ipd-bmsX XpSÀ¶p. 9 Znh-kT Ignªv 1þ11-þ02\v Bip-]-{Xn-hn-Sp-T-t]m-gpT ]\n \ne-\n¡p-¶p-­m-bn-cp-¶p”. Ext.B2 temperature chart disprove this allegation and temperature record quite clearly reveals that temperature had been steadily kept normal through out the post operative period. Hence the allegation of the complainant that even on the day of discharge she was suffering from  fever is absolutely wrong as per the records. The opposite party contended that surgery was successful, according to him she was made to sit up on the following day.

          It is true that she tried to sit up for some time. Since temperature chart remained steadily and normal as per Ext.B2, nurse’s record it can be very well assumed that her condition was improved. The allegation of the complainant that there was temperature during the post operative period has no base as per Ext.B2, temperature chart. 2^nd opposite party Doctor, contending however that she was advised to report on 7.11.02. Discharge Reference Card shows that she was given only 6 days medicine and  advised to inform after that. The contention of opposite party is that she did not report on 7.11.02 because she had no complaint on the day. Any how complainant is seen reported on 10.11.02 with complaints of pain and fever. Dr.Bantwal opinioned that complainant was suspected to have Discitis .Thus she was operated for debridement on 14.1.2003.Ext.A3 shows that condition on discharge is very mild pain. This document has not been challenged at  any point of time. She was discharged on 28.2.03. Ext.A3 shows that she was advised to wear belt while sitting. Ext.B1 clinical chart shows there was no pain. Opposite party contended that she was able to sit up herself and to walk with support. This contention of 2^nd opposite party cannot be considered as baseless since there is advice to wear belt while sitting.  It can be seen that there is no record to show that the complainant has taken any serious further treatment under any other doctors. If condition was deteriorating and pain became unbearable she would have been approached a doctor again for relief. If she managed for last 7 years without any other serious line of treatment, the allegation that her condition is deteriorating cannot be taken as genuine. The complainant has serious allegation that she had infection either due to some mistake on the part of 2^nd opposite party in doing surgery or due to lack of hygiene in the operation theatre. But no expert was examined to prove this.  This allegation cannot be accepted without the support of an expert opinion. Infection can occurred on varying levels which depends upon the individual immunization status . In the case in hand the complainant was not able to make out a cause of negligence against 2^nd opposite party, complainant could have taken initiative  to adduce evidence  of a medical expert to prove that 2^nd opposite party doctor was negligent in treating her  adopting wrong line of treatment, which resulted into infection. It is also not possible to conclude that she had infection due to the lack of hygiene in the operation theatre without an expert opinion. In Sethuram Subrahmanian Vs. Thi  Nursing home reported in I(1998) CPJ 180(NC) the Hon’ble National Commission held that “ the complainant has not given any expert evidence  in support of the allegation for establishing medical negligence on the part of the doctor, there must be sufficient evidence that the doctor or hospital has not taken  reasonable care while  treating the patient’. The complainant has not challenged the method of treatment. The capability of the doctor /2^nd opposite party also has not been questioned at any time. Complainant has no case that the 2^nd opposite party was not qualified enough to treat her for  her ailment.  She was treated earlier in another hospital and she approached 2^nd opposite party having been dissatisfied with the earlier treatment. It is pertinent to note that after taking CT scan from the earlier hospital she was advised for operation and it is at that point of time, she approached 2^nd opposite party.  She consented to undergo operation on the same day of admission on 23.10.02 because she had best impression with respect to the competency of 2^nd opposite party/Dr. Bantwal.

          2^nd opposite party contended  that the operation was success and the complainant was able to sit up in the very next day. According to 2^nd opposite party, complainant was brought before him on 23.10.02 by wheel char with the support of her husband.  The complaint after operation became cap[able to sit up her very next day of operation indicates only that the operation was very much successful.

          Operation was advised and surgery namely Lumbar Laminectomy and Disctomy was conducted on the same day. Complainant has no case that this is not a proper line of treatment for compression of the spinal nurse root between L4-L5 due to protruding inter-vertebral disc. It is relevant to go through “Text book of Spinal Surgery” A comprehensive guide to the Management of Spinal problems Edited by Dr.P.S.Ramani. It reads in page 793 under common clinical Problems that in para 4, ‘Disc space infection’ thus “there are unfortunate patients who develop the infection in spite best efforts of the surgeon”. So also in Neurosurgery reported in principles and practice by John Lumley series Editor Page 646 under post operative Neurosurgical infections observes that “in spite of numerous improvements in aseptic technique and prophylaxis, post operative infection following craniotomy continues to be a source of substantial morbidity. In the last Para it is also observed that the incidence of infection within30 days of craniotomy ranges from 0 to 22% with an average rate of around 5%.

          The Hon’ble Supreme court in  Routh Raheswari  Vs.Dr.Uppalapati Venugopala Rao reported in IV(2010)CPJ 196 (NC) has taken note of the  following “The Medical Consultant has also opined that post-operative even in the best hospitals, a patient can get infection. In fact 5-10% patient  can develop complications, and this does not necessarily imply any  fault or negligence on the part of the doctor. Hence merely because there is infection deficiency in service cannot be attributed unless there is sufficient evidence to prove that the doctor or the hospital has not taken reasonable care while treating the patient.

          In the light of the above discussion and the available documents on the above referred, we are of the view that 2nd opposite party doctor followed the standard methods and exercise professional skills and therefore no negligence can be attributed upon him. Thus issues 1 to 4 are found against complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

                             Sd/-                      Sd/-                   Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Copy of the CT scan of the complainant taken from Tellicherry  co-

       op. Hospital.

A2 & A3.Discharge reference cards in IP No.7390 and 8028 issued by OP

A4 to A88.Cash bills for purchase of medicines.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1. & B2.Original case sheet of complainant maintained by 1^st OP

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

PW2.M.Lakshmanan

Witness examined for the opposite party:

DW1.Dr.S.C.Bantwal

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes  Redressal Forum, Kannur.