IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011
Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No. 82/2007 (Filed on 17.07.2007)
Between:
Mr. O. Thomas,
Kochuparampil House,
Eruva East P.O., Pathiyoor Village,
Karthikapally Taluk,
Alappuzha Dist.
(By Adv. T. Harikrishnan) … . Complainant.
And:
- Dr. Abraham Jose,
Prof. of Orthopaedics,
Pushpagiri Medical College,
Thiruvalla.
- The Manager,
Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvalla.
(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla) …. Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case as per the original complaint and as per the amended complaint is that he had been undergoing treatment for neurological ailments since 3rd January, 2005 and during the course of the said treatment, the complainant approached the second opposite party hospital on 26th October, 2005 for getting specialist treatment. On that day onwards, the complainant was under the treatment of Dr. M. Subbaiah and Dr. V.K. Sanjeev who were Consultant Neurologists of the second opposite party. While so on 5th January, 2007 when he approached the first opposite party, the above said Consultant Neurologists were not in the hospital. So he was directed to the first opposite party by the Administrative Staff. When the complainant approached the 1st opposite party, he directed the complainant to his junior doctors. The said junior doctors prescribed certain medicines to the complainant as per the direction of the 1st opposite party. Thereafter on 16.01.2007, 31.01.2007 and 02.02.2007 also the complainant was directed to consult the junior doctors by the first opposite party. After the intake of the medicines prescribed by the first opposite party, the complainant developed symptoms of insanity and later he become completely insane and he began to cause annoyance to the family members and neighbours. The consumption of the said medicines induced mania in the complainant and by 10.02.2007 the complainant became so manic thereby he lost his self control. By about 11 a.m. on 10.02.2007, the complainant ran away from his house towards the nearby railway line wearing only his under garments. He behaved like completely a mad person. The complainant’s relatives and neighbours chased him and caught him with force and tied his hands and legs for controlling him. In that condition, he was taken to St. Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam and he was admitted in the Department of Psychiatry by Dr. Cheriyan Mathew. He was an inpatient for a period of 5 days.
3. First opposite party is an Orthopaedic Specialist of the second opposite party. The complainant approached the second opposite party for getting the services of an expert and Specialist Neurologist as he was suffering from neurological ailments. At the earlier stage, he got proper treatment from Prof. Subbaiah and Dr. V.K. Sanjeev who were Consultant Neurologists. But in their absence, the second opposite party failed to provide specialist treatment to the complainant. If no specialist doctors were available in the second opposite party hospital, the second opposite party should have refer him to another hospital or inform the non availability of the specialist doctors. But instead of referring the complainant to another hospital, the second opposite party treated the complainant for monetary gain, thereby caused huge loss to the complainant. According to the complainant, the first opposite party recklessly had undertaken the case of the complainant knowing it to be beyond his powers and without proper diagnoses prescribed certain medicines through his junior doctors without having any vigilance, knowledge and caution. From 5th January to 2nd February 2007, the complainant was under the treatment of the first opposite party and due to the consumption of the medicines prescribed by them, the complainant become manic after a period of one month. It has been revealed in the subsequent treatment at St. Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam, the cause of insanity was due to the intake of the medicines prescribed by the opposite parties. Though the first opposite party diagnosed the complainant’s trouble as depression, he withhold the said information and the probable consequences of the consumption of the prescribed medicines from the complainant and his relatives. The first opposite party was completely ignorant of the nature or action of the prescribed medicines. The said omission of the first opposite party prevented the complainant and his relatives from taking necessary precautions to protect the complainant from the adverse consequences of the drug induced mania suffered by the complainant. Because of the incidents occurred on 10.02.2007, the complainant’s public image was tarnished and his family members including his unmarried daughter were put to irreparable injury and loss. Everything happened due to the negligence of the opposite parties. So the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the loss and sufferings of the complainant. Hence this complaint for the realisation of an amount of ` 4,25,000 from the opposite parties under various heads.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: According to the opposite parties, first opposite party is the Prof. of Orthopaedics of the second opposite party. The complainant consulted the first opposite party on 09.01.2007 with complaints of numbness of the left leg and foot which increased at night and flapping movements of left foot. He gave an old history of Cerebrovascular accident with left hemi paresis. He had a history of previous treatments in their hospital on 19.07.2004 as a referred case from Star Hospital, Ochira for upper respiratory tract infection and hypertension. He was found to be a chronic alcoholic. On examination of the complainant by the first opposite party, the complainant was found to have Grade IV muscle power of the left lower limb with exaggerated knee jerk and up going plantar reflex on the left side. Hand grip was also found to be weak and patient was found to be depressed. The complainant was diagnosed to be a case of peripheral neuritis with depression. He was treated by anti depressant and mood elevation drugs (Typlin 10 mg. and Tab. Daxid 50 mg.) and Neuropathic vitamin (Cap. Renerve BT & Gabatin Plus) along with injection of Depomedrol 80 mg/st which was given for 10 days. He was reviewed on 30.01.2007 and on 02.02.2007 and found to be better. The medicines were thus prescribed for another one month. The patient then came to the second opposite party hospital on 26.03.2007 and consulted Neuro Physician Dr. Reji Thomas with the complaints of multiple joint pains. On examination, the Neurologist found no significant weakness or numbness of the left leg and had only complaint of joint pain. After that, there was no follow-up in the second opposite party hospital.
5. The allegation that the Administrative Staff of the second opposite party directed the patient to first opposite party is false and baseless. The staff of the hospital directs patients according to the choice of the patient. In the case of the complainant, he was being treated by Dr. Subbaiah and Dr. Sanjeev. But on 09.01.2007 it was the patient who had requested that he wishes to consult an Orthopaedic Surgeon. The allegation that after the intake of medicines prescribed by the first opposite party, complainant developed symptoms of insanity is false. The medicines were prescribed on the basis of the diagnosis and his condition was totally improved as per the hospital records dated 26.03.2007 when the complainant came for consultation. None of medicines have a tendency of insanity as alleged by the complainant. The complainant’s treatment at St. Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam is not aware of the opposite parties. The allegation that the complainant was not aware of the fact that the first opposite party is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at the time of consulting is false. The board before each department clearly mentions the department in which the patient is seeking treatment. On 09.01.2007 the complainant had requested for orthopaedic consultation. The allegation that the first opposite party had treated the complainant without proper diagnosis and had prescribed medicines recklessly is false and baseless. A thorough examination was done on the complainant and proper medicines were prescribed. The allegation that the complainant had suffered a lot of mental, physical, economic and social sufferings due to the deficiency of the opposite parties is false. None of the said problems were necessitated by any act of omission or commission on the part of the first opposite party. No negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in connection with the treatment of the complainant. So the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. This complaint is frivolous and vexatious.
6. Opposite parties also filed an additional version on the basis of the amendment of the complaint with the following main contentions: The allegation against the opposite parties is that the complainant became an insane person due to the negligent treatment of the opposite parties. So the complaint filed by an insane person is only to be ignored as it is not filed by his close relative or his best friend. Another contention raised by the opposite parties is that mania is not a disease and it is only a reduction in vigor and hence the allegation that due information regarding the disease of the complainant was not furnished to the complainant or his relatives is not a negligence. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether this complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
8. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PWs.1 to 5 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
9. Point No.1:- In this case, opposite parties raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint after the appointment of the complainant’s wife as the legal guardian of the complainant and after the amendment of complaint. According to the opposite parties, the complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that after the consumption of the medicines prescribed by the opposite party, the complainant became an insane person. But this complaint was filed by the complainant himself. Later the complainant’s wife was appointed as the legal guardian of the complainant as on the submission that the complainant is not capable of protecting his interest in this case. The question raised by the opposite parties is that if the complainant is not sane and is not capable of protecting his interest due to his insanity as claimed and admitted by the complainant, a complaint filed by such a person is not maintainable before this Forum. Opposite parties also filed that separate petition as I.A.No.68/2011 in this connection. This I.A was opposed by the complainant with the following contentions: According to the complainant, his wife was already appointed as a legal guardian of the complainant and this question cannot be considered at this stage and it can be considered at the final hearing of this case as the evidence in this case was almost complete. Further Psychiatric doctors including the doctor who had treated the complainant at St. Thomas Medical Mission, Kattanam were already examined and they have deposed before this Forum, that the complainant is not totally insane and he is capable of remembering the past. Moreover, deposition of the complainant does not show any draw backs due to insanity. The complainant’s wife was appointed only for the purpose of protecting and safeguarding the interest of the complainant and for avoiding the chances of any draw backs if any that would arise in future in the course of the trial of the case due to the complainant’s alleged ailments.
10. This matter was heard elaborately and on the basis of the arguments of the parties, we have gone through the deposition of the complainant and his wife and the doctors. The said depositions did not give any indication that the complainant is totally insane and he is not capable to protect his interest in this case. So we find that this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. Therefore, this point is found in favour of the complainant, thereby I.A.No.68/2011 is dismissed.
11. Point Nos.2 & 3:- The complainant’s allegations against the opposite parties can be summarized as follows: The complainant approached the second opposite party for getting the services of a Neurologist as he was under the treatment of Neurologists of the second opposite party. But the complainant was directed by the Administrative Staff to the first opposite party who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon instead of directing the complainant to a Neurologist. The first opposite party examined the complainant and diagnosed depression and prescribed medicines for depression. According to the complainant, an Orthopaedic Surgeon is not competent to treat or prescribe medicines for depression and as per recognized medical procedure, if depression is diagnosed, the medical practitioner ought to have inform this matter to the patient as well as to the relatives and also he should inform about the possible after effects of the said medicines. But in this case, first opposite party did not inform anything about the diagnosis and after effects of the medicines. The first opposite party also continued the treatment by prescribing the same medicines with high dosage without observing or evaluating the condition of the complainant. Because of the continued consumption of the medicines prescribed by the first opposite party, the complainant’s depression was switched over to mania and later he became insane and he acted violently as a completely mad man. This caused heavy loss and sufferings to the complainant and his family members in various respects. The said sufferings are due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.
12. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. On the side of the complainant, 2 doctors and 2 other witnesses including the complainant’s wife as the legal guardian of the complainant were examined as PWs. 2 to 5 and the documents produced from the side of the complainant were marked as Exts. A1 to A12. Ext. A1 is the Patient Identity Card in the name of the complainant issued from the second opposite party hospital. Exts. A2, A2(a), A2(b) and A2(c) are the prescription slips issued by Dr. Subbaiah, Consultant Neurologist of the second opposite party hospital issued in the name of the complainant on different dates. Ext. A2(d) is another prescription slip issued by Dr. V.K. Sanjeev, Consultant Neurologist of the second opposite party hospital in the name of the complainant. Exts. A3, A3(a) and A3(b) are the prescription slips issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A4 is the discharge card dated 19.02.2007 issued from St. Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam in respect of the treatment of the complainant from 10.02.2007 to 19.02.2007. Exts. A5 and A5(a) are the copies of the Advocate Notice dated 28.05.2007 issued to the opposite parties for the complainant. Ext. A6 is the reply notice dated 30.05,2007 issued by the first opposite party in reply to Ext. A5 Advocate Notice. Ext. A7 is the discharge card dated 08.01.2005 issued from Government Hospital, Kayamkulam in respect of the treatment of the complainant from 03.01.2005 to 08.01.2005. Ext. A8 is the discharge summary dated 04.07.2005 issued from Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Tripoonithura in respect of the treatment of the complainant from 14.05.2005 to 04.07.2005. Exts. A9, A9(a), A9(b) and A9(c) are the medicine bills issued from the second opposite party hospital in the name of the complainant. Ext. A10 series (20 receipts) are the medical bills issued from St. Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam in the name of the complainant. Ext. A11 is the Outpatient Record issued from St. Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam in respect of the outpatient treatment of the complainant. Ext. A12 is the appointment slip dated 16.01.2007 issued from second opposite party in the name of the complainant.
13. On the other hand, opposite parties’ contention is that the complainant came to the second opposite party after making a booking for consulting the first opposite party. Accordingly, when the complainant approached the first opposite party on 09.01.2007, the first opposite party diagnosed the case of the complainant as peripheral neuritis with depression. He was treated by antidepressant and mood elevation drugs (Typlin 10 mg. and Tab. Daxid 50 mg.) and Neuropathic vitamin (Cap. Renerve BT and Gabatin Plus) along with injection of Depomedrol 80 mg./st. This was given for 10 days. He was reviewed on 30.01.2007 and on 02.02.2007 and found to be better. The medicines were thus prescribed for another one month. The patient then came to the second opposite party hospital on 26.03.2007 and consulted Neuro Physician Dr. Reji Thomas with the complaints of multiple joint pains. On examination, the Neurologist found no significant weakness or numbness of the left leg and had only complaint of joint pain. After that there was no follow-up in this hospital. The staff of the hospital directs patients according to their choice. Accordingly, the complainant came to the first opposite party on 09.01.2007 as per his request. The medicines prescribed by the first opposite party is the proper medicine required for the ailments diagnosed and none of the said medicines have tendency to cause insanity as alleged. The board displayed before each department clearly mentions the department in which is the patient is seeking treatment and each department displays the names and qualification of the doctors. So the allegation that the complainant was not aware initially that the treating doctor is an Orthopaedic Surgeon is false and ill motivated. Necessary treatment was given to the complainant and on subsequent consultation, vast improvement was seen in the complainant. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The alleged mental, physical, economic and social sufferings is not due to the negligence or deficiency of the opposite parties and this complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is filed only for harassing the opposite parties.
14. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, first opposite party was examined as DW1 and the document produced was marked as Ext. B1. Ext.B1 is the medical records kept by the second opposite party in respect of the complainant’s outpatient treatments from 26.01.2005 to 26.03.2007.
15. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties in respect of the treatment of the complainant by the opposite parties. The only question to be considered is whether there is any deficiency or negligence from the part of the opposite parties in respect of the complainant’s treatment. According to the complainant, he was willfully denied the services of a Neurologist and he was directed to consult an Orthopaedic Surgeon without disclosing that he was sending to an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Since the complainant’s ailments are related to Neurology, an Orthopaedic Surgeon is not competent to treat the complainant and the treatment and the medicines prescribed by the Orthopaedic Surgeon put the complainant as an insane person. According to the opposite parties, the complainant approached the first opposite party at his choice and the medicines prescribed by the first opposite party is the proper medicines on the basis of the diagnosis and the said medicines does not cause insanity as alleged.
16. In the light of the allegation regarding the mis-guidance of the complainant to the first opposite party, we have perused Exts. A3, A3(a) and A3(b), Ext. A12 and Ext. B1. As per Ext. A3 series prescription slips and Ext. B1 medical records, the complainant consulted the first opposite party thrice and as per Ext. A12 appointment slip, the complainant obtained an appointment for consulting the first opposite party. But there is no evidence to show that the complainant had consulted the first opposite party as per Ext. A12 appointment slip. As per the proof affidavit of the complainant, the complainant is an Ex-Service man. So he not an illiterate person. As per the proof affidavit of the first opposite party, the second opposite party had displayed boards at every department showing the name of the department and the name and qualifications of each doctors of that department. The complainant has no case against the above facts. In the circumstances, the allegation regarding the mis-guidance of the complainant by the Administrative Staff of the second opposite party hospital to an Orthopaedic Surgeon is not sustainable.
17. The next allegation is that, due to the intake of the medicines prescribed by the first opposite party, the complainant became an insane person. In order to prove this allegation, 2 Psychiatric doctors were examined as PW2 and PW5. PW2 deposed that there is no harm in prescribing Amitryptiline tablet and Daxid (Serpralin) tablet to patients having history of stroke in normal dosage, and the dosage mentioned in Ext. A3 series is normal. Further deposed that prescribing anti depressants in case of orthopaedic surgery and stroke is an accepted procedure of treatments and an Ortho doctor is competent to treat a patient having masked depression and persons having masked depression can consult an orthopaedic doctor, and an orthopaedic doctor can prescribe anti depressants on the basis of the said consulting.
18. The gist of the deposition in chief of PW5 is the general complications of the medicines for depression and the precautions ought to have been taken by a doctor in the treatment of a patient having history of depression and allied ailments. But in cross examination, he deposed that he had not seen the treatment records of the complainant and he is not aware of the medicines prescribed and the treatments given to the complainant. Further, there is a wide contradiction in his deposition in chief examination and re-examination in respect of a crucial issue involved in this case. In chief examination, his answer to the question put to him by the learned counsel for the complainant is as follows: Daxid, Triplin F¶o acp¶pIÄ Hcp Pain Reliever F¶ Dt±i¯n H¶c amkt¯mfw Ign¡phm³ prescribe sN¿p¶Xv standard operationþ\v hncp²atÃ? Chronic painþ\v sNdnb tUmkn sImSp¡mdpv (A). Daxidþ\v F{XbmWv quantity sImSpt¡Xv? 150 Mg. per day (A). At the same time, in re-examination, his answer to the question put by the learned counsel for the complainant is as follows: Daxid, Triplin F¶o acp¶pIÄ H¶c amk¡mew XpSÀ¨bmbn Ign¨ Hcp tcmKn am\nbmbnte¡v kzn¨v HmhÀ sN¿p¶¦n AXv B acp¶pIfpsS adverse effect BWv” (QA). These answers are contradictory in the light of the deposition of PW2 that administration of such medicines in normal dosage to patients having history of stroke and the dosage mentioned in Ext.A3 series is normal. The general opinion seen in the deposition of PW5 cannot be considered in this case because of the reason that the complainant never made any attempt to show the medical records in connection with the treatment of the complainant to the witness and put question based on the said records, though the said document were in the case file. PW5 is examined for establishing the complications of the medicines prescribed to the complainant and the precautions ought to have been taken by a doctor in the treatment of a patient having mental disease. But the specific case of the complainant is that he approached the opposite parties for getting the services of a Neurologist and he was not a mental patient at that time. Opposite parties’ case is that the complainant approached them for not getting the services of a Psychiatrist and not with complaints of mental disease and complainant had history of stroke. According to opposite parties, the medicine prescribed by them is the necessary medicines as per their diagnosis. In the light of the deposition of PW2 and PW5, we have examined the prescription slip of first opposite party (Ext. A3 series) and found that the medicines prescribed by the first opposite party, the dosage and duration prescribed are normal. Moreover PW2 deposed that the complainant had history of stoke. Further as per the deposition of PW2 and PW5, this medicines can be used for other ailments other than mental disease and it will not cause other complications as alleged by the complainant. In view of the above facts, allegations against first opposite party regarding the non advise of precautions and improper prescription is not sustainable.
19. Further, as per the materials available on record, it is seen that the first opposite party is an Orthopaedic Surgeon having 40 years of experience and he is the Dean and Professor of Orthopaedic Department of the Medical College run by the second opposite party. In such a situation, we don’t think that he is not competent and his prescription is improper. On the basis of the discussions herein above, we find no deficiency of service against the opposite parties and hence this complaint is found not allowable.
20. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of November, 2011.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : O. Thomas.
PW2 : Dr. Cheriyan Mathew.
PW3 : P. Sajikumar.
PW4 : Annamma Thomas.
PW5 : Dr. K.S. Purushothama Bhatt.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Patient Identity Card in the name of the complainant issued from the
second opposite party hospital.
A2 : Prescription slip by Dr. M. Subbaiah of second opposite party hospital
dated 26.10.2008.
A2(a) : Prescription slip by Dr. M. Subbaiah of second opposite party hospital
dated 14.11.2008.
A2(b) : Prescription slip by Dr. M. Subbaiah of second opposite party hospital
dated 08.01.2006.
A2(c) : Prescription slip by Dr. M. Subbaiah of second opposite party hospital
dated 05.06.2006.
A2(d) : Prescription slip by Dr. V.K. Sanjeev, Consultant Neurologist of the second
opposite party hospital.
A3 : Prescription slip by Dr. Abraham Jose of second opposite party hospital
dated 05.01.2007.
A3(a) : Prescription slip by Dr. Abraham Jose of second opposite party hospital
dated 30.01.2007.
A3(b) : Prescription slip by Dr. Abraham Jose of second opposite party hospital
dated 02.02.2007.
A4 : Discharge card dated 19.02.2007 issued from St. Thomas Mission Hospital,
Kattanam.
A5 & A5(a) : Photocopies of the Advocate Notice dated 28.05.2007 issued to the opposite
parties for the complainant.
A6 : Reply notice dated 30.05.2007 issued by the first opposite party in reply to
Ext. A5 Advocate Notice.
A7 : Discharge card dated 08.01.2005 issued from Government Hospital,
Kayamkulam in respect of the treatment of the complainant from 03.01.2005
to 08.01.2005.
A8 : Discharge summary dated 04.07.2005 issued from Government Ayurveda
College Hospital, Tripunithura in respect of the treatment of the
complainant from 14.05.2005 to 04.07.2005.
A9, A9(a), A9(b) & A9(c) : Medicine bills issued from the second opposite party hospital
in the name of the complainant.
A10 series (20 in number): Medical bills issued from St. Thomas Mission Hospital,
Kattanam in the name of the complainant.
A11 : Outpatient Record issued from St. Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam in
respect of the outpatient treatment of the complainant.
A12 : Appointment slip dated 16.01.2007 issued from second opposite party
hospital in the name of the complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Dr. Abraham Jose.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Outpatients Medical records issued from Pushpagiri Medical College
Hospital, Thiruvalla in the name of the complainant.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Mr. O. Thomas, Kochuparampil House, Eruva East P.O., Pathiyoor Village,
Karthikapally Taluk, Alappuzha Dist.
(2) Dr. Abraham Jose, Prof. of Orthopaedics, Pushpagiri Medical College,
Thiruvalla.
(3) The Manager, Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla.
(4) The Stock File.
