Date of Filing: 26/12/2014
Date of Order: 19/07/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This the Complainant filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prays for orders to direct the OPs to refund the sum of Rs.1,45,396/- incurred towards medical expenditure to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complainant that, the complainant met with the accident on 18.06.2013 and sustained injuries to her left shoulder. Hence the complainant admitted to the OP No.2 hospital to get treatment. It is stated that, after some days that the complainant noticed the swelling on her left shoulder and having paid and hence once gain on 28.07.2013 visited O.P.No.1 hospital and the O.P.No.2 and 3 have examined the complainant on her left shoulder. After examination O.P.No.2 and 3 recommended to the complainant to undergo surgery and advised the complainant to admit as inpatient and accordingly complainant was admitted to O.P No.1 hospital at 9.10 pm. In order to treat the complainant and the O.P.No.2 and 3 have collected the blood samples for investigation and sent it to the laboratory reports. The O.P.No.1 hospitals have examined the blood sample and gave the report in that respect, the complete blood count and other test. The report clearly stated that the glucose random result is 425 mg/dl, but the glucose random reference range/normal range only is only 75 to 150 mg/dl, Sodium Serum test in kidney function test result is 133 mmol/l this is below the normal range. The reference normal range is 136/145 mmol/l the complainant alleges that glucose level result was abnormal result that is 425 mg. The OPs No.2 and 3 have not informed to the complainant in respect of her abnormal glucose level and even both OPs have also not given any treatment for abnormal glucose level to control. It is stated that, O.P.No.2 and 3 have not verified the lab report in order to perform surgery and fixed the date for surgery on 29.07.2013 and the O.P.No.4 negligently administered the anesthesia on the complainant without looking into the lab reports. It is the grievance of the complainant OPs committed professional negligence and he failed to discharge professional service by way of medical negligence. The O.P.No.1 has over charged the medical bills without proper care and treatment. Further stated that at the time of discharge of the complainant O.P.No.2 and 3 did not give any treatment and not advised for medicine and diet for the complainant sugar level and sodium serum level. It is alleged that, the action of all the OPs lead to future health problem of the complainant and hence alleged that Ops have committed deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, the O.Ps appeared through their counsel and filed their version. In the version of OPs it is contended that complaint is filed with an intention to tarnish the image of the Ops and there is no negligence nor any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. It is admitted that the complainant was brought to the Op hospital on 18.06.2013 with alleged history of RTA on the same day at 9.00 a.m. On local examination left shoulder of the complainant was unable to move, no abrasion, abdomen the “Multiple abrasion over the left side of the abdomen, on the right foot abrasion over the dorsum of the foot and hence investigations ordered for X-rays shoulder, X-rays chest, X-rays C-spine and USG abdomen and pelvis. It is contended that, complainant met with an accident and sustained injuries to her left shoulder and got treatment at the OP.No.1 hospital on 18/06/2013. The x-ray revealed that patient had sustained displaced fracture left clavicle and the doctor advised the patient for surgery but the patient refused to undergo surgery and neglected the doctor’s advice and wanted only conservative management. Later complainant developed swelling on her left shoulder and pain and hence visited the hospital for the second time on 28/07/2013 after lapse of one month and 10 days. The patient was examined by Dr.Navinchand, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon. It is found that tender over the left clavicle and x-ray showed displaced fracture of the left clavicle and the patient advised for surgery. Accordingly patient was admitted on 28/07/2013 at 9.10 p.m. and underwent all the relevant investigations, like blood count, Glucose, Random, X-ray shoulder single view, kidney function test, Sodium, Potassium, Chloride, Creatinine, Blood urea, etc. She underwent pre-anesthetic check up, during which patient had no medical history to diabetes like previous hospitalization for hyperglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis or hypertension in herself or family. Also on examination there were no signs or symptoms of diabetes. Pre-operatively the complainant’s glucose level was managed to perform surgery successfully. Hospital records shows that blood sugar level and other related parameters were being constantly monitored. On 29/07/2013, complainant underwent surgery open reduction and internal fixation for non-union of displaced fracture with thorough debridement of the non-union site of left clavicle with grafting with bone substitutes. With the patient under general anesthesia the patient was positioned in beach chair position. The left shoulder and upper limb were scrubbed with betadine and painted with betadine. The fracture non-union of the left clavicle exposed. The fracture was then fixed with AO (Synthes) six hole titanium locking plate, wound washed. Ultimately patient stood the procedure well and recovered from anesthesia was uneventful. After the surgery post operative orders were to take care of the dressing and maintain the upper limb in an arm immobilizer. All efforts were made to check the blood pressure and blood sugar levels before the surgery and required medications were given. The complainant was discharged on 31/07/2013 with an advice to review in OPD on 07/08/2013. At the time of discharge the condition of the patient improved without any infection and the wound was clean and healthy at the time of discharge. The complainant also visited the OP hospitals for follow up and he was examined by Dr.Naveen Chand and her healing was satisfactory and the patient has not suffered any damage due to the surgery. It is contended that O.P.No.1 hospital is having competent doctors and they took all care in treating the complainant-patient. Further they have given highly specialized treatments to the complainant. Hence, with these above grounds Ops denies all the allegations made in the complaint and contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately Ops prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and also heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proves
that O.Ps committed Medical Negligence
and it leads to deficiency in service?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No.(A) & (B):-
7. On perusal of the pleadings it is an undisputed fact that the complainant met with an accident and sustained injuries and hence she approached the O.P.No.1 hospital and got obtained the treatment. After some days there is a swelling and pain in the shoulder and once again approached the O.P.No.1 hospital and on diagnosis of the complainant/patient it has been noticed that there is a fracture and advised the complainant to undergo surgery and accordingly surgery was conducted and the complainant is cured.
8. The only allegation of the complainant is that prior to surgery there were many examination done and it has been noticed high level sugar and the O.P.No.2 and 3 without informing the high level sugar and monitoring the sugar level conducted the operation. Further after the discharge O.Ps did not give any treatment for diabetic nor advised regarding the same and hence complainant alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for their act of negligence.
9. Per-contra, O.Ps contended that, complainant was brought to the Op hospital on 18.06.2013 with alleged history of RTA on the same day at 9.00 a.m. On local examination left shoulder of the complainant unable to move, no abrasion, abdomen the “Multiple abrasion over the left side of the abdomen, on the right foot abrasion over the dorsum of the foot and hence investigations ordered for X-rays shoulder, X-rays chest, X-rays C-spine and USG abdomen and pelvis. It is contended that, complainant met with an accident and sustained injuries to her left shoulder and got treatment at the OP.No.1 hospital on 18/06/2013. The x-ray revealed that patient had sustained displaced fracture left clavicle and the doctor advised the patient for surgery but the patient refused to undergo surgery and neglected the doctor’s advice and wanted only conservative management. Later complainant developed swelling on her left shoulder and pain and hence visited the hospital for the second time on 28/07/2013 after lapse of one month and 10 days. The patient was examined by Dr.Navinchand, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon. It is found that tender over the left clavicle and x-ray showed displaced fracture of the left clavicle and the patient advised for surgery. Accordingly patient was admitted on 28/07/2013 at 9.10 p.m. and underwent all the relevant investigations, like blood count, Glucose, Random, X-ray shoulder single view, kidney function test, Sodium, Potassium, Chloride, Creatinine, Blood urea, etc. She underwent pre-anesthetic check up, during which patient had no medical history to diabetes like previous hospitalization for hyperglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis or hypertension in herself or family. Also on examination there were no signs or symptoms of diabetes. Pre-operatively the complainant’s glucose level was managed to perform surgery successfully. Hospital records shows that blood sugar level and other related parameters were being constantly monitored. On 29/07/2013, complainant underwent surgery open reduction and internal fixation for non-union of displaced fracture with thorough debridement of the non-union site of left clavicle with grafting with bone substitutes. With the patient under general anesthesia the patient was positioned in beach chair position. The left shoulder and upper limb were scrubbed with betadine and painted with betadine. The fracture non-union of the left clavicle exposed. The fracture was then fixed with AO (Synthes) six hole titanium locking plate, wound washed. Ultimately patient stood the procedure well and recovered from anesthesia was uneventful. After the surgery post operative orders were to take care of the dressing and maintain the upper limb in an arm immobilizer. All efforts were made to check the blood pressure and blood sugar levels before the surgery and required medications were given. The complainant was discharged on 31/07/2013 with an advice to review in OPD on 07/08/2013. At the time of discharge the condition of the patient improved without any infection and the wound was clean and healthy at the time of discharge.
10. On perusal of the cross examination of the complainant it is clearly admitted that on account of surgery her injuries were healed up and also admitted that she has visited the O.Ps hospital after the surgery for follow-up treatment on 2.8.2013, 9.8.2013 , 14,8.2013, 11.9.2013 and on 29.10.2013 and the X-ray report healing work was satisfactory. It is also admitted that complainant had obtained the reimbursement to an extent of 70% of the medical expenditure from the private insurance company. It is also admitted even after six weeks of surgery the healing was good and complete satisfactory as per the X-ray report. It is also admitted that she had been even tab X-met SR 500 1-0-1 daily after food review after two weeks with FBS , HB AIC , LIPID profile report dietitian referral for diabetic chart. The complainant had been followed the doctor’s advice and prescribed about after discharge, she only came to know that she is have diabetic after discharge and the O.P doctors advised her not to come to the hospital as healing was completed. With the above admissions by the complainant clearly goes to show that O.Ps doctors are not negligence in their review and the complainant deposed contrary to her own pleadings. Hence, the allegations of the complainant is lame of strength and holds no water.
11. It is not the case that the complainant established the medical negligence was the direct cause of injury or loss suffered by the patient and we find there is no case of medical negligence as per the evidence placed on record. Further in the absence of credible evidence it cannot be held that O.P doctors were guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service. The onus of proving negligence and result in deficiency in service was clearly on the complainant which onus has not been discharged. The complainant also failed to adduce any acceptable evidence in support of her plea and no medical expert has been examined.
12. It is note worthy to mention that, the doctors of the O.Ps hospital who knows better how to conduct the surgery and the line of treatment. It is not the case of the complainant she is having diabetic history prior to accident and surgery. The O.P No.2 and 3 also stated that after monitoring glucose level conducted the surgery and at the time of discharge she was hale and healthy. It is not the duty of the orthopedic doctor or anesthetist to advise the complainant for a diabetic treatment and if the complainant has any grievance in respect of diabetic problem and she has to approach the competent doctor and to get there advise and it is nothing to do with O.P.No.2 and 3. Furthermore, there is no allegations about the surgery conducted on the complainant and from the said surgery complainant has suffered. Viewing from any angle complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and complainant is not entitled for relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly we answered these points in the Negative.
POINT (C):
13. On the basis of answering the Points (A) & (B) in the Negative, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint hereby is dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 19th Day of July 2017)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
