CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC No. 117/2007 Tuesday, 30th day, of November , 2010 Petitioner : K.J. John, Kalapurackal House, Vanchimala P.O Kottayam. (By Adv. C.S Ajayan & Adv. Babu Pothen) Vs. Opposite parties : 1) Dr. C. Varghese @ Chemmanom Varghese, S.H Medical Centre, Kottayam. (By Adv. Sajeevu Mathew & Adv. Renu Sajeevu) 2) S.H. MedicalCentre, Near Railway Station, Kottayam reptd. by its Administrator. (By Adv. P.M Mathew) O E D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 5..5..2007, is as follows: The second opposite party is the hospital and 1st opposite party is a Doctor employed by the second opposite party. Petitioner was treated by second opposite party at the second opposite party hospital by paying consideration for the service rendered and for the medicines supplied. Petitioner was first treated in another hospital for respiratory tract infection and other ailments. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the treatment he approached the first opposite party, an expert medical practitioner . Petitioner consulted the first opposite party on 21..9..2006 at the outpatient department with vide OP No. 20414/06. Before consulting the petitioner to first opposite party blood sample was taken from the complainant for testing blood sugar. As per the result given by the laboratory of second opposite party the blood sugar was only 102 mg. On seeing the said result -2- the first opposite party first intimated the petitioner that he did not suffer from any physical ailment and he did not require any treatment. First opposite party prescribed 3 medicines and asked petitioner to meet him again on 25..9..2006. On 25..9..2006 petitioner went to the first opposite party as directed by him. First opposite party checked the blood pressure of the petitioner and prescribed certain medicines and advised the petitioner to undergo inpatient treatment. Then an injuction was administered to the petitioner and there after blood sample was taken for testing at 12.15 p.m. According to the petitioner first opposite party, without obtaining the result of the blood test, administered insulin injuction to petitioner at 1.40 p.m. Within 15 minutes the petitioner started to feel dizziness and he asked the nurse to check his blood sugar. But the apparatus for testing blood sugar was not available and so she could not conduct the testing immediately. Blood sugar of the petitioner was then checked about 10 minutes later and then it was found that petitioner’s blood sugar was 94 m.g. Immediately concerned nurse asked petitioner to have some biscuits and so the petitioner ate six biscuits . Then the complainant shifted the room for inpatient treatment. Their after also complainant felt dizziness and then also he was advised to eat biscuits. Since the petitioner requested to check the blood sugar before injuction the same was checked and was found to be 178 m.g. Then the nurse administered insulin injuction on 26..9..2006 during the visit of the first opposite party petitioner intimated all this details. Though assured to reduce the doze, an injuction was also given. On that day after sometime petitioner started to feel dizziness. According to the petitioner on many times without considering the physical condition of the petitioner another doze of insulin was administered to the petitioner . On 28..9..2006 suspecting malpractice petitioner requested first opposite party to discharge him and the petitioner got discharged from the hospital. On discharge petitioner remitted the necessary hospital expenses and medicine charges to the opposite party . According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to -3- pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as punitive damages and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of the proceedings. 4th opposite party entered appearance and filed separate version. First opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Petitioner approached first opposite party on 21..9..2006 for the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus he was diagnosed to have disease from a local hospital 15 days before consulting the first opposite party. Petitioner reported the first opposite party that his blood sugar was 640 mgs. at the time of diagnosis in that hospital. The details of the treatment were recorded in the case sheet after record this in the case sheet first opposite party was going to give him a different schedule of treatment. The patient was examined in detail in the opposite party’s department on 21..9..2006. First opposite party found that petitioner had evidence of Peripheral Neuropathy in his both legs. Which indicated that he had un detected an uncontrolled diabetics for at least few months prior to report to the first opposite party. The blood sugar value of 102 mgs. on 21..9..2006 was due to the above anti-diabetic drugs prescribed from the local hospital. Since petitioner had features of peripheral neuropathy first opposite party advised the petitioner future line of management. First opposite party explained to the petitioner the need for insulin injuction, at least for some time, and injuction of neurotropic vitamins for a few days. Which is the standard treatment of diabetic neuropathy. The very fact that first opposite party prescribed anti diabetic druggs and petitioner consumed them proves that the petitioner needed medicines for diabetic control. According to the first opposite party he had given medically accepted standard treatment for the diagnosed condition of the petitioner and there was no negligence or carelessness in treating the complainant. First opposite party exercise due skill and care through out the treatment of the patient as would be expected from a reasonable and qualified medical practitioner in such circumstances. So, the first opposite party prays for a dismissal of the petition with their costs. -4- Second opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Interallia 2nd opposite party filed version raising same contentions of first opposite party. According to the second opposite party complainant is frivolous and vexatious. Opposite parties have exemplarily long standing repudiation in the field of medical service . There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of first and second opposite party . Petitioner is treated with acceptable methods and utmost care. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1. Crux of the case of the petitioner is that first opposite party administer insulin to the petitioner without conducting any inspection. Due to the act of the servants of the second opposite party, on several occasions, during the inpatient treatment. Petitioner felled dizziness thus the petitioner alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties due to in take of the diabetic drugs, prescribed from the local hospital, the value of the blood sugar on 21..9..200 6 was 102 mgs. Since the petitioner had the disease of peripheral neuropathy first opposite party prescribed insulin injuction and neuropathic vitamin. According to the opposite party they had given medically accepted standard treatment for the diagnosed condition of the petitioner. Here the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that opposite party had omitted to do something which they ought to have done or has done something which a reasonable man of that profession ought to have done. It is decided by the appellate Forums and Apex courts on many times that ‘negligence’ in the -5- context of medical professions necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional or to a particular doctor additional considerations will apply. Case of professional negligence is different from occupational negligence. A simple lack of care, and error of judgment is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. Petitioner hs a bounden duty to prove by expert evidence that the first opposite party doctor followed a practice which is not acceptable to the medical profession of that day. Without proving the same opposite party cannot be held liable for negligence. Liability in medical negligence cases is restricted to those cases were there is a real failure to behave as a reasonable competent practitioner. Here petitioner failed to prove the same. Applying Bolam test which is still hold good, as the basis for the adjudication of medical negligence. We would not find any negligence on the part of the doctor and hospital . So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the petitioner Ext. A1: Discharge record of the petitioner Ext. A2 series Bills Ext. A3: Copy of O.P card Ext. A4: Letter dtd: 30..10..2006 issued by the administer to the petitioner. Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1 Medical reports of the patient and IP No. 20416/06 By Order, Senior Superintendent Received on / Despatched on amp/5 cs. | 
