KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12.8.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Dr.Sam William, : APPELLANT Sheela Clinic, Mananthavady.P.O., Wayanad. (By Adv.M.C.Suresh) Vs. Adv.K.P.Sebastian, : RESPONDENT S/o Poulose, Kochukunnumpurath, Kuzhinilam, Mananthavady. (By Adv.Asokan) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.137/07 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation to the complainant and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is an advocate that on 29.6.07 he sustained a deep knife injury in between the index finger and thumb of the left hand and he approached the Clinic of the 1st opposite party. He had told the 1st opposite party, doctor that he is not in a position to move the thumb at all. But the opposite party did not take note of the same and sutured the wound and applied the bandage and directed to come for review on the 3rd day. On the 3rd day he went to the clinic and told the opposite party that he is unable to move thumb. The opposite party did not take care of the same and applied the dressing without any further examination. On 6.7.07 after removing the sutures opposite party told the complainant that the tendon has been cut and that is why the finger can not be moved. Then he referred him to Dr.P.T.sureshkumar. Doctor Sureshkumar suggested him to go to a hospital where there are better facilities and directed him to Leo hospital at Kalpetta. He consulted the doctor of Leo hospital and tests including X-ray was conducted. Thereafter he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. But the complainant came to know that Dr. Sebastian of Fathima Matha hospital, Kalpetta is an efficient surgeon and that the above hospital is having all modern facilities. He meet the above doctor on 10.7.07 and as directed by the doctor surgery was conducted on 12.7.07. Thereafter for about 2 months bandage was applied to the left hand and he was not in a position to do anything with the above hand. He had to undergone the sufferings as the surgery was not done in time and the tendon had withdrawn inside. Immediately at the time after sustaining the injury if the surgery was done the tendon could have been joined by a minor surgery. It was on account of carelessness and negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party doctor in not informing him about the tendon injury and referring him to a competent doctor that he had to put up all the difficulties. He has spent a sum of Rs.300/- at the clinic of the opposite party; Rs.200/- at Leo hospital and Rs.3500/- at Fathima Matha hospital . He had to spent a lot of amounts for travel etc. He was also advised to do physiotherapy. Even after that he is having considerable disabilities. He has sought for compensation of 30,000/-. 3. The opposite party has denied the allegations altogether. It is stated that on 29.6.07 on examination of the complainant it was found that the injury was bleeding profusely and there was immobility of the thumb. According to him he had explained to the complainant that the immobility of the thumb indicated tendon injury and directed orthopedic consultation. Bleeding was not subsiding with pressure bandage and hence the wound was sutured under local anesthesia, in order to stop bleeding. After suturing the wound opposite party gave him a reference letter to Dr.P.T.Suresh kumar, orthopedic surgeon of District hospital. However on the 3rd day the complainant come to the opposite party for review and stated that he did not consult the orthopedic surgeon as he was busy. The opposite party insisted that he should consult orthopedic surgeon immediately. The complainant requested the opposite party to change the dressing since it has become dirty. On humanitarian grounds the opposite party changed the dressing of the wound and again explained to the complainant the importance of re-exploring the wound and suturing the tendon. However the patient again come to the opposite party on the 7th day and told him that he lost the reference letter. As the wound was 7 days old the suture was removed and the patient was given a new reference letter. Thereafter the complainant did not come to the opposite party. It is contended that the rest of the allegations are false. He has claimed compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of testimony of PWs 1 and 2, OPW1; Exts,A1 to A11 and B1 and X1. 5. The Forum has found that the opposite party has failed to provide proper advise to the complainant and that only on the 7th day Ext.A1 reference letter was given to the complainant . It was found that the complainant had to spent around Rs.4000/- on account of the delay in suturing the tendon. The Forum has not considered the evidence adduced in the matter or discussed the same. 6. PW1/complainant has filed proof affidavit containing averments in support of his version as in the complaint. The complainant has testified that it was at about 11AM that he went to the opposite party with the injury and by 11.15 AM the wound was sutured under local anesthesia. He has reiterated in the cross examination that he had told the opposite party that he could not move the finger. He met the doctor as directed after 3 days and the wound was dressed and he was again asked to come on 6.7.07. On that day sutures were removed and was given Ext.A1 reference letter to Dr.Sureshkumar. On the same day he met Dr.Sureshkumar who advised him to meet a specialized doctor or come back on 10.7.07. On 10.7.07 he went Leo hospital and consulted Domenic Xavier, Orthopaedician. Dr.Dominic Xavier advised him to consult a plastic surgeon at Medical college hospital and also gave him a reference letter which he has produced as Ext.A2. In the same day he consulted Dr.Sebastian(PW2). On 11.7.07 he went to Fatima Matha hospital to get admitted. Ext.X1 is the case sheet of Fathima Matha hospital, Kalpetta wherein the date of admission is mentioned 12.7.07 and the particulars of the surgery done is also noted in Ext.X1. It is noted that at the time of admission he was not at all able to flex the finger. Physiotheraphy has also be advised. The tendon repair was done under General Anesthesia. PW2, Dr.Sebastian who conducted the surgery has stated that the tendon was completely cut. He has also stated the tendon it cut completely it will withdraw inside on both sides. He is a Consultant Surgeon. He has also stated that if the tendon is cut it is advisable to conduct the surgery at the earliest at any rate within 24 hours. It is stated in the cross examination that in instant case tendon had not withdrawn inside totally. OPW1/opposite party who has also filed proof affidavit and was cross examined has asserted that on the 1st day itself he has told the complainant to see an orthopaedic doctor. He has produced as Ext.B1 which according to him is the treatment record of the complainant at his hospital. It is only a piece of paper wherein the dates 29.6.07;2.7.07 and 6.7.07 are mentioned and in the margin it is seen noted on 29.6.07 and also on the portion below the medicines are noted as referred to ortho. It is also written to see ortho on 2.7.07, also it is noted to see ortho on 6.7.07. Ext.B1 being not part of a register etc the possibility of concocting the same cannot be ruled out. We find that the evidence of OPW1 and his version cannot be believed as such that he had advised PW1 to see the orthopaedic doctor or that he had referred him to an Orthopaedic doctor. The complainant would have meet an orthopaedician as he would be having considerable pain and being any educated person and a lawyer he would have realised the implications of the cut injury to the tendon. Further the explanation of the opposite party for issuing another reference letter on 6.7.07 that the complainant told him that he lost the letter given to him earlier also appears unlikely in the circumstances. On going through the evidence in the matter we are inclined to believe the version of the complainant as to the lapse on the part of the opposite party in not referring the complainant to an expert at the earliest. The same amounts to negligence. The amount of compensation ordered to be paid is only Rs.4000/-. The amount is too low considering the fact that the complainant underwent the surgery under General Anesthesia. Hence we order that the amount of compensation to be paid by the appellant is raised to Rs.10000/-. The appellant would also be liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.1000/-. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification in the decretal portion Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum and parties. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
