DATE OF FILING : 21.4.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.78/2010

Between

Complainant : Sudhakaran, S/o Shivanandan,

Inchakkattu House,

Block No.800, Kompamukku,

Ramakkalmedu P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Director,

Medical Trust Hospital,

Nedumkandam,

Nedumkandam P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Benny Joseph)

2. Dr. Jossymon. J. Kallarackal,

ENT Specialist,

Medical Trust Hospital,

Nedumkandam,

Nedumkandam P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Baby Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant approached the opposite party hospital on 19.10.2009 for the treatment of bilateral nasal obstruction and it was advised by the 2^nd opposite party that suturing can be done for treatment of the same and so the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 22.10.2009. Partial anaesthesia was given to the complainant and suturing was done by the 2^nd opposite party. Unfortunately, the instrument used for the same became defective and the complainant had caused electric shock in the nose of the complainant. So the complainant cried loudly due to the same. Two persons forcibly caught on his hands and the suturing was completed and the complainant was discharged on 23.10.2009 from this hospital. But the pain was existing and infection was also caused in the nose of the complainant. So the

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

complainant was again admitted on 25.10.2009, medicines and injection were given to the complainant. The complainant was discharged from the hospital stating that the 2^nd opposite party was availing leave from the hospital. The treatment of the 2^nd opposite party was not at all effective and so for better treatment, he was admitted in the District Hospital, Idukki and continued treatment upto 2.11.2009. The complainant was treated there only because the treatment of the opposite party was not satisfiable by the complainant and it caused financial loss to the complainant. While the complainant was discharged from the District Hospital, he was again admitted at St. John's Hospital, Kattappana and continued the treatment upto 5.11.2009. The opposite parties never gave necessary care to the complainant while the suturing was conducted, so that the illness of the complainant was not at all cured and he needed treatment in another hospital. The opposite parties received about Rs.2,000/- for the same as consideration and the complainant spent more than Rs.5,000/- for the treatment at St. John's Hospital and District Hospital but he is not at all able to do his work after the same and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was lost due to the same. It was also advised to take rest for 3 months for the complainant again. So this petition is filed for getting back the amount Rs.2,000/- which is paid by the complainant and also interest for the same and also for compensation.

2. As per the written version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, it is admitted that the complainant approached the opposite party on 19.10.2009 with the complaints of bilateral nasal obstruction since approximate six years. On examination, it was seen that the right side was completely obstructed. The patient reported that he has undergone bilateral turbinate cauterization in the District Hospital about 2 years back. The diagnosis by the treating doctor is that, the patient is suffering from allergic rhinitis with hyper trophied bilateral inferior turbinates. The first line treatment for the above said disease was done such as bilateral partial inferior turbinactomy, but the patient is not willing for the said treatment and hence partial electrocautry was done under local anaesthesia and his ailments were relived. The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party agreed to remove the flesh in the nose by suturing is false. Everybody has turbinates in the nose, but the patient herein has chronic allergy and due to that his turbinates have developed to bigger size. No suturing was done to the patient as alleged. That is caused by the misunderstanding in the bill. It is typed in the bill, suturing charges instead of cautry charges. During electro cautry procedure there caused fault in the machine and the patient got electric shock in the case is not at all correct. On 25.10.2009, the patient came to the hospital telling that his surrounding are full of dust and hence admitted, necessary treatments were given and discharged on 26.10.2009 with an advice to continue nasal spray and review after one week. But he never came to the hospital as advised. The allegation of treatment expenses in St. John's Hospital and District Hospital are exorbitant, false arbitrary and without any basis. So the complainant is

(cont....3)

- 3 -

not at all entitled to realise any amount from the opposite parties and no loss has sustained to the complainant. There is no negligence or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PWs 1and 2 and Exts. P1(series) to P7(series) marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT:- The complainant deposed as PW1. PW1 admitted in the opposite party Hospital and suturing was done on 22.10.2209. While it was conducting by the opposite party, the instrument used for the same was became defective and it caused electric shock to the nose of the complainant. Eventhough the machine was repaired by the technician, no effect was there. Only partial anaesthesia was given to the complainant and so that he cried loudly because of the same, but the opposite party forcibly continued the treatment with the help of two persons and the complainant was discharged on 23.10.2009. The cash bills issued by the opposite party hospital is marked as Ext.P4(series). Ext.P6(series) is the treatment record from the Medical Trust Hospital, Nedumkandam. Again the PW1 was admitted there on 25.10.2009 because the pain was increased and also caused infection to the inside of the nose. After that he was again admitted for further treatment in District Hospital on 26.10.2009. Ext.P1(series) are the cash receipts for the treatment from the District Hospital, Idukki. That treatment was also not satisfiable by the complainant and he was again admitted in St. John's Hospital, Kattappana on 2.11.2009 and continued treatment there upto 5.11.2009. Ext.P2 is the bill for the treatment at St. John's Hospital, Kattappana. Due to negligence from the part of the opposite party, he was admitted in there. The discharge summary from the St. John's Hospital is marked as Ext.P3. On cross examination of the learned counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant admitted that he is engaged in the work of carpentry and while he was working the same, dust always spread over there and the illness was started before 5 years. He was in treatment in a hospital at Thookkupalam for the same and also at Medical College, Kottayam. He approached the opposite party in the first time on 19.10.2009. While he approached the opposite party hospital, he was difficult to breath due to the growth of flesh in the nose. The doctor advised to conduct surgery in the nose, but it was expensive and so it was not done and this treatment was done.

(cont....4)

- 4 -

On cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, specific question asked, what he understand by the word suturing, PW1 answered that it is a method of removing the flesh inside the nose by means of heat through an instrument. It was done by giving an injection to his backbone, he was unconscious while it was done. He discharged from there in the next day itself. It was advised by the doctor to come after one week of the treatment. Again his illness was not at al cured and so he admitted in St. John's Hospital, Kattappana. Antibiotics were prescribed by the doctor at District Hospital, Idukki. The complainant was treated in Medical College and the doctor there advised that climate and dust will affect this illness and so even the surgery cannot cure the disease. While cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party that, it was not suturing done on the patient by the opposite party, but partial electrocautry was done on him and it was because there was a mistake happened in the bill given to the complainant which is written as suturing inspite of partial electrocautry. Suturing means only stitching.

PW2 is the doctor who treated the complainant at the District Hospital, Idukki and he is having M.S in ENT. As per Ext.P6, the patient was suffering from nasal obstruction and the reason was turbinate hypertrophy in both sides. The treatment of the illness depends upon the reasons for the enlargement. The initial treatment is electrical cauterization. PW2 prescribed antibiotics to the patient. While PW1 admitted in the hospital of PW2, he has infection in his nose and treatment was done for the same and the infection is a common consequence in all the surgery. As per Ext.P7, the surgery was advised, but that was not done on the patient. It was directed the patient to review after one week, but the patient never responded. “Sub mucosal diathermy” was done at the opposite party's hospital which is something done with the heat by electricity. It is an initial treatment and if the electrocautry has done, the patient would have the same disease again. In this case electrocautry has been done on the patient in the opposite party hospital. Turbinictomy is a surgical procedure and it was not done on the patient. Elctrocautry is doing with local anaesthesia.

DW1 is the doctor who treated the complainant at the opposite party hospital. DW1 deposed that on 19.10.2010, the patient approached him with the complaint of bilateral nasal obstruction since approximate 6 years and he also told that he is undergone bilateral turbinates cauterization in District Hospital about 2 years back. The patient was suffering from allergic rhinits with hypertrophied bilateral inferior turbinates. Medicines were given to the patient. But the patient came back on 22.10.2009 saying his symptoms are not relieved, so the 2^nd opposite party did partial electrocautry under local anaesthesia and it was the accepted treatment for him. The allegation that during electrocautry procedure, there caused fault in the machine and the petitioner got electric shock in the nose is denied by the DW1. On 25.10.2009, the complainant again came to the hospital telling that his surrounding are full of dust

(cont.......5)

5 -

and hence admitted and necessary treatments were given and discharged on 26.10.2009 with an advice to continue nasal spray and review after one week. But the patient never came after that. Cauterization is a procedure by which they apply heat through electrical appliance, which is an instrument used in surgical theatre, in a few days, because of the heat, the swollen turbinates will shring. On 19.10.2009, the patient was given 5 days medicines and advised to come after 5 days and the procedure were explained to him before doing. The normal amount for doing the same is Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Being a carpenter, concession has been given to the complainant. Medicines were not charged and samples were given. It is not a surgery procedure, no blade is used, no injury happened to the patient. Antibiotics IV has been given and discharged on 23^rd with oral antibiotics. “Topcef” was given as antibiotics. Suturing procedure written in the bill is a mistake happened and a procedure charge of Rs.400/- was received from the complainant and a total of Rs.930/- was received. He was discharged in the next day itself because it was a small procedure and it wants only one day at there. DW1 also prescribed medicines for the patient in order to avoid infection. As per Ext.P7(c) shows that there was no fever for the patient which means that there is no sign of severe infection. There is no failure in the equipments in the hospital.

As per the complainant, suturing was done on him by the opposite party, it was done by partial anaesthesia and an injection was given to the back bone for the same. The complainant was unconscious at that time and several times he felt severe pain while doing suturing. Several time he felt electric shock and discharged on 23.10.2009 was advised to come after one week while discharging from the hospital. Again he was admitted there on 25.10.2209 because he was not able to do his work and was discharged on 26.10.2009 because the doctor was on leave from that day. Eventhough he was admitted in District Hospital, Idukki and treated there for 8 days, he was again admitted in St. Johns Hospital because he was not at all cured from there. Discharge was requested from the District Hospital and antibiotics were given from the District Hospital. He was again treated there at St. John's Hospital for 5 days and medicines were given for 3 months and now also he is not at all cured from the disease.

On perusing the evidence of PW2, the expert witness who is Senior ENT Surgeon from District Hospital, the initial treatment for the complainant was electro cauterisation and Ext.P6(series) treatment chart shows the consent letter for the same. After that the patient can be discharged at the same day or the 2^nd day. Antibiotics is not a must and analgesics are given probably but antibiotics are optioned. Infection is a common consequence of surgery and as per the Ext.P7, surgery was advised by the doctor and it was not done. 'Sub mucosal diathermy' was done at the opposite party's hospital. 'Thermy' was something done with heat and it is the initial treatment. After

(cont.....6)

- 6 -

that if the patient is not recovered from the disease, surgery can be done. Again the disease will occur after electrocautry. In this case, the complainant was done electrocautry at the opposite party's hospital and it is also seen as per Ext.P6(series) that the patient was given antibiotics on 22.10.2009 and 23.10.2009 at the opposite party hospital. PW2 also deposed that exact treatment was given to the patient from the opposite party's hospital. As per the discharge certificate, antibiotics, analgesics and steroid were given. There is no negligence from the part of the opposite party's treatments as per the records perused by the PW2. DW1 deposed that bilateral turbinates cauterisation was done on the patient. The patient is a carpenter by profession and due to dust allergy, the turbinates will swollen and get nasal obstruction. Cauterisation is a procedure by which heat is applied through electrical appliances which is an instrument used in the surgical theatre. Due to the same the swollen obstruction will shring. Concession was given to the patient.

So we think that the patient was admitted in the hospital for doing bilateral turbinates cauterisation and it was done at the hospital. It is a procedure by applying heat through electrical appliances. PW1 also admitted that the procedure done on his nose was applying heat by electrical appliances and he got electrical shock due to the same. But he himself deposed that suturing was done on him. As per the opposite party, it is due to mistake happened in the bill given to the complainant that suturing was done on the patient and it is a clerical typing mistake happened to the staff of the hospital. In Ext.P4(series) bill, suturing charges Rs.400/- has been received is written. But the DW1 and PW2 deposed that bilateral turbinate cauterisation has been done on the patient. As per the PW2, the senior ENT Surgeon in the District Hospital deposed that the treatment done by the opposite party's hospital are correct and antibiotics were also given to the patient. No negligence has been caused to the treatment of the opposite party. PW2 also treated the patient after discharging from the opposite party hospital for 8 days and antibiotics were provided to the patient. Ext.P6(series) case sheet also shows that the opposite party prescribed antibiotics on 22.10.2009 and on 23.10.2009 to the patient. He was discharged on 23.10.2009 from the opposite party hospital after prescribing antibiotics. But the patient came on 25^th with the complaint of allergy because the house was full of dust and he was admitted there and he was discharged on 26^th. After the discharge from there, he was treated for 8 days at District Hospital and after that he has treated at St. John's Hospital, Kattappana. Now also the complainant is not at all cured from the disease. It is also deposed by the PW1. So we think that actual treatment were done by the opposite party's hospital for his disease, but he is a carpenter in profession, due to dust, his disease is not at all cured and it is also deposed by DW1. He was again admitted there at the request of the complainant. The complainant himself deposed that he was treating for the disease at the Medical College Hospital for a long time and the doctor there advised him to avoid from dust and cold.

(cont...7)

- 7 -

So we think that the complainant is an acute allergy patient and he was treated in the opposite party's hospital, District Hospital Idukki and also in St. John's Hospital for the same disease and electrical cauterisation procedure was also done at the opposite party's hospital. Expert evidence produced by the PW2 also shows that the treatment done at the opposite party's hospital are exemplary correct and there is no negligence from the part of them and PW2 himself continued the treatment to the patient after discharged from the opposite party's hospital. So PW2 is the doctor who is aware of the illness of the patient. The complainant also never produced evidence to show that, due to negligence of the opposite party hospital, his illness is not at all cured. There is no contention regarding that the treatment at the opposite party hospital caused any other disease to the complainant or any inconvenience to the complainant after the same. The only dispute is that his disease is not at all cured and it is also deposed by PW2 that the electrical cauterisation is an initial procedure and only after conducting suturing, the patient will get completely cured, that was not at all done on the patient. That is also admitted by the PW1. So we think that there is no deficiency has been proved by the complainant for the treatments of the opposite parties.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of September, 2011

Sd/- SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN ( PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)

(cont...8)

- 8 -

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Sudhakaran

PW2 - Dr. Navas.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Jossymon. J. Kallarackal.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1(a to c) - The cash receipts for the treatment from the District Hospital, Idukki.

Ext.P1(d) - Cash bill from Advanced Clinical & Research Laboratory,

Medical College, Kottayam.

Ext.P2(series) - The bills for the treatment at St. John's Hospital, Kattappana 4 Nos.

Ext.P3 - The discharge summary from the St. John's Hospital, Kattappana.

Ext.P4(series) - The cash bills issued by the opposite party hospital.

Ext.P5 - The culture and sensitivity report from the Department of

Microbiology in St. John's Hospital, Kattappana.

Ext.P6(series) - The treatment record from the Medical Trust Hospital,

Nedumkandam.

Ext.P7(a) - The Casuality Ticket of District Hospital, Idukki.

Ext.P7(b) - Prescription by Dr.Navas T.O.

Ext.P7(c) - Case sheet of the complainant at the District Hospital, Idukki.

Ext.P7(d) - Doctor's Order Sheet of the complainant.

Ext.P7(e) - Nurse's Record Sheet of the complainant.

Ext.P7(f) - Diet chart of the complainant at the District Hospital, Idukki.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

Nil.