CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member Date of filing: 07/10/2011

CC / 168/ 2011

1. D.M.Peters,

S/o.Sunny Peters, - Complainant

Cheruvallil House, Thekkedesam P.O,

Chittur, Palakkad.

(BY ADV.C.Madhavankutty)

Vs

1. Dr.Binto Mathew, M.S,

Paalana Institute of Medical Sciences,

Yakkara, Palakkad , - Opposite parties

(BY ADV.V.K.Venugopalan)

2. Dr.Faizal, M.S,

Paalana Institute of Medical Sciences,

Yakkara, Palakkad

(BY ADV.V.K.Venugopalan)

3. Fr.Julius Arakkal,

Director,

Paalana Institute of Medical Sciences,

Yakkara, Palakkad

(BY ADV.E.Ramachandran)

O R D E R

BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief:-

Complainant approached 2^nd opposite party with the complaint of gross urine retention and unbearable pain on 7/7/11. It was diagnosed as Grade II prostate and 2^nd opposite party conducted operation on 8/7/11. On discharge on 10/7/11 it was advised by the complainant that the complaint is completely cured. But on going home also urine retention persisted and so he approached the 2^nd opposite party on 12/7/11. After treatment he was discharged with urethral Foley Catheter and was advised to come on 18/7/11 for removing of the urinary tube. Complainant again felt discomfort due to urine retention on 16/7/11 and contacted the 2^nd opposite party on phone who in turn informed that he is on leave and advised to go to Paalana Hospital and problem will be cured by 1^st opposite party who will be available at the casuality. The grievance of the complainant is that he was made to wait at the casuality for more than an hour without any medical attention. 1^st opposite party never attended the complainant, instead directed the nurse to refer the patient to some other hospital. Further he was taken to K.G.Hospital and underwent a 2^nd surgery. According to the complainant, 2^nd opposite party has not removed the prostate tissue completely and that is the reason why again operation was done. Complainant has spent huge sum for the 2^nd surgery. According to the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of all the opposite parties.

All the opposite parties resisted the complaint with the following contentions.

According to 2^nd opposite party surgery was planned only after a detailed discussion with the complainant regarding the pros and cons of the surgical procedures. The complainant was also pre-operatively informed about the need for possible re-resection for post operative indication of urinary retention. It is learned that Cystoscopy and re-resection was done at K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore. It was earlier informed to the complainant before TURP about the possibility of repeat resection in view of the large size of the gland. According to the 2^nd opposite party TURP (Trans Urethral Resection of Prostate) is a surgery required to limit its duration to a maximum of 90 minutes as its prolongation may lead to TURP Syndrome which is life threatening. Hence in resection of large glands it is better to go for a second sitting rather than prolonging the operating time and facing its complications. According to him, he has acted as per accepted medical practice and hence there is no deficiency in service. 1^st opposite party contented that he received a call from the casuality medical officer on 17/7/11 at 2.30 AM regarding the patient. Diagnosing it as catheter block it was instructed to change the catheter. After change of catheter also urine was not coming out. 1^st opposite party felt that the patient needs urologist intervention as early as possible since the case was post Trans Urethral Resection of prostate. Casuality Medical Officer was instructed to refer the patient to the nearest urologist for expert management. According to 1^st opposite party, he being a general surgeon is not an expert to deal with the matter and hence in the best interest of the patient he was referred to higher centre where urologists service were available. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

3^rd opposite party filed version accepting the contention of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to A8, Ext.B1 series and oral testimony of PW1 and DW1.

Issues for consideration are

1. Whether there is any negligence on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?

    

Issue No.1 & 2

On going through the complaint, we understand that the complainant is alleging medical negligence upon the opposite parties mainly on two grounds.

Firstly the act of negligence on the part of 2^nd opposite party in conducting the surgery has resulted in the 2^nd surgery done at the K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore. According to the complainant, 2^nd opposite party did not remove the prostate tissue completely in the 1^st surgery which resulted in the 2^nd surgery.

Secondly during the post operative period when the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party hospital, with urine retention and pain, 1^st opposite party did not attend the complainant and he was made to wait more than an hour with out medical attention and he was referred to K.G.Hospital by the nurse.

Opposite parties resisted the said allegation with the following contentions.

Surgery was planned after a detailed discussion with the complainant about the surgical management by adopting Trans Urethral Resection of Prostate(TURP) complainant was also pre-operatively informed about the need for possible re-resection for the post operative indication of urinary retention. Complainant has given consent after understanding all these facts. It is also stated that TURP is a surgery required to limit its duration to a maximum of 90 minutes as its prolongation may lead to TURP Syndrome. According to opposite party No.2 he has acted as per accepted medical practice and hence no deficiency in service.

Regarding the 2^nd allegation opposite party No.1 submits that he has received a call from Casuality at 2.30 A.M on 17/07/2011. Diagnosing the complaint as a catheter block, he gave instruction to the Casuality Medical Officer to change the catheter. Since urine was not coming out and as it is a case of Post Trans Urethral Resection of Prostate, opposite party No.1 felt that an Urologist intervention as early as possible and hence instructed the Casuality Medical Officer to refer the patient to the nearest urologist for expert management. Hence no deficiency in service on his part.

On going through the evidence on record, we find that complainant himself has admitted while cross examining that “ho­Wpw sNt¿W-­n-h-cp-sa¶v ]d-ªn-cp-¶p. Further states Urinary retention h¶m cWm-a-XvsN-¿Ww F¶p ]d-ªn-cp-¶p. F\n¡v ]cm-Xn-sbm-¶p-an-Ã.”

The definite contention of opposite party No.2 itself is that 2^nd surgery in the case of prostate removal is an accepted medical practice to avoid further complications. Complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove medical negligence on the part of opposite parties.

Regarding the 2^nd issue, DW1 has deposed that at what time was the complainant brought to the hospital on 16/07/2011 was not known to him. Further states that he was informed by Chief Medical Officer at 2.30 A.M on 17/07/2011 and at that time he was attending a post operative case in ICU. Assuming it to be catheter block it was advised by opposite party No.1 to change the catheter. PW1 himself that admitted while cross examining that 'Nurse tube amän-X-¶p. Tube amän-bn«pw  urine t]mbn-Ã. Nurse thsd hospital tebv¡v t]mbn-t¡m-fm³ ]d-ªp. 

According to the complainant the nurse in-charge had given a referral letter where as Ext.A3 shows that it was given by Casuality Medical Officer. Further there is no evidence on record to show that complainant was made to wait for an hour without any medical attention. Ext.B1 the case file shows that complainant was admitted at the opposite party hospital on 17/07/2011 at 2.30.A.M.

From the available evidence on record, we find it difficult to establish medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove a case in his favour.

In the result complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th day of September, 2012.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Discharge Summary of Paalana Institute of Medical Sciences Dt.10/07/2011(Original).

Ext.A2 - Discharge Summary of Paalana Institute of Medical Sciences Dt.12/07/2011(Original).

Ext.A3 – True copy of Referral letter dt.17/07/2011, Paalana Institute of Medical Sciences.

Ext.A4- True copy of discharge Summary of Paalana Institute of Medical Sciences Dt.22/07/2011.

Ext.A5 - Medical bill amount to Rs.24,300/-(Original)

Ext.A6-Medical bill amount to Rs.1,450/-(Original)

Ext.A7- Medical bill amount to Rs.54,328/-(Attested copy) K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore.

Ext.A8 Series -Medical Bills(Original)

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 series-Case sheet of Mr.Peters

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1-D.M.Peters

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1- Dr.Binto Mathew.