By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The Complainant was admitted in M.E.S Hospital S. Bathery on 16.12.1999 for delivery. The Opposite Party conducted cesarean and the delivery was effected. On 27.12.1999 the Opposite Party discharged the Complainant from the hospital. The Complainant had to spent Rs.10,000/- towards treatment charges for medicines. The Complainant had stomach ache now and then even after the discharge from the hospital. The region where the cesarean was done the Complainant had unusual swelling and pain. The Complainant received the consultation of the Doctor at that time but there was no use. The pain and swelling was increased and the Complainant approached an another Doctor for treatment. The Doctor who treated the Complainant told that the swelling and pain at the part of the body where the cesarean was done is due to the mistake in operation. The Complainant<br /> (Contd.......2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> was later admitted in Vinayaka Hospital, Bathery and the Doctor who treated the Complainant conducted an operation and removed the catgut used as sutures. The pain and swelling sustained was due to negligence of the Opposite Party in use of the substandard catgut for suturing. The Complainant had to spent near about Rs.10,000/- for the 2nd operation and it was caused due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. The pain and suffering caused to the Complainant is to be compensated. The Complainant is to be given Rs.3,20,000/- as compensation with 13% interest from the date of filing the complaint till the payment along with Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings caused to the Complainant. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The complaint is hopelessly time barred. The surgery was conducted on 17.12.1999 and the Complainant was discharged on <br /> 27.12.2003. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party for the antenatal checkup. The examination of the patient was done at first on 23.04.1999 it was the 2nd delivery of the Complainant. The Opposite Party noted in the Complainant mild induced hypertension in connection with pregnancy. The Complainant later underwent LSCS under spinal anesthesia on 17.12.1999 at 2.16 A.M. The Opposite Party removed parts of nylon threads which were used for the closer of the rector sheet in the first surgery. Cesarean section was done as usual and after extracting the baby uterine wound was closed with catgut No.2 uterovesical peritoneum was also sutured with catgut No.2. The Opposite Party used standard suture materials. The allegations by the Complainant that the substandard suture materials were used is absolutely baseless. The Complainant was discharged on 27.12.1999. The review checkup were later done in time. The wound part of the Complainant did not show any infection. The Complainant found to be healthy and devoid of any discomforts. The Complainant was also informed to come for further treatment and tests in the hospital, but did not report later. The materials used for suturing were of good quality. With utmost care and caution the (Contd.......3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> operation was done. The allegations of the Complainant is apart from any reasons such the swelling and pain at the part of the body where the cesarean was done. The Complainant did not report to the Opposite Party even after short while of the operation and afterwards when ever the Complainant came to the Opposite Party for the tests. The Complainant did not avail treatment if she had any pain or swelling in the body at region of operation. The Opposite Party strongly denied the allegations of pain and swelling with respect to operation done by the Opposite Party. There was no fault in the surgical procedure. The sutures used in the uterine wound was removed by the Doctor Krishnakumar and the abdominal pain and swelling subsided only afterwards are denied by the Opposite Party. It is highly improbable that the absorbed catgut sutures were removed after more than 3 years from the Complainant uterine wound. There is no carelessness or inefficiency or any negligences as a Doctor in the treatment and cesarean of of the Complainant. The Opposite Party is well experienced obstetrician and gynecologist having done more than Rs.3,000/- cesarean operations in her 28 years of professional experiences. The Complainant cannot blame the Opposite Party for any deficiency in service or negligence. The Opposite Party exercised utmost care and caution in surgery and the materials used of the sutures are of standard quality. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.<br /> The points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Whether the complaint is bared by limitation?.<br /> 2.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?.<br /> 3.Reliefs and cost.<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1 and Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. <br /> (Contd.......4)<br /> 4 -<br /> The version filed by the Opposite Party contended that the complaint is bared by limitation. It is highly belated at this juncture to make a command upon the delay aspect. As per section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act the limitation period for the filing of a complaint is to be within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. The sub section 2(1) explains, if the Complainants satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission as the case may be that he had sufficient case for not filing. The complaint within such period provided with no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission and the District Forum as the case records the reason for condoning such delay. It is to be presumed that the delay would have been condoned.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. It is admittedly seen that the Complainant was admitted in the M.E.S Hospital, S. Bathery on 16.12.1999. The complaint is filed on 01.06.2003. The Complainant was admitted in Vinayaka Hopital on 14.03.2003 and operation was done by Doctor Krishnakumar, who is examined as PW2. The exploration of the previously operated part was done under local anesthesia. The suture materials nylon were removed by PW2. The patient was improved on 3rd post operative day. According to PW2 admission in the hospital was for three days. The Doctor who explored the wound of the cesarean delivery testimonied that he cannot say the reason why the swelling and pain caused to the Complainant. According to PW2 the suturing materials used by the Opposite Party are normally in use. Further it is denied by PW2 that absorbable materials are used for suturing inside. The cause of infection according to the expert PW2 not due to the materials used. The Complainant had undergone two operations before. The age of operation could not be assessed. The PW2 also deposed that exploration was done by him at the part of the body were two operations were done earlier. The Doctor who did the operation further stated that which<br /> (Contd.......5)<br /> - 5 -<br /> of the suturing materials became irritating to the patient cannot be ascertain by him. The Complainant had to undergo treatment in connection with swelling and pain caused at the region of the earlier operation in her body. The infection reason on the body of the Complainant is not brought out in evidence. The above inferences shows that the point No.2 cannot be established against the Opposite Party and there is no deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Point No.3:<br /> The Complainant cannot establish the dispute raised and since the points No.1 and 2<br /> are found against the Complainant. The detailed analysis of the point No.3 does not arise in this juncture.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order upon costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 6th day of March 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Rabiya Complainant.<br /> PW2. Dr. A. Krishnakumar. Doctor.<br /> (Contd......6)<br /> <br /> - 6 -<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> OPW1. Dr. Noorjahan. Rtd. Civil Surgeon.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Cash Bill. <br /> A2. Prescription. dt:03.02.2003.<br /> A3. Discharge Card. <br /> A4. Prescription. <br /> A5 series<br /> (9 in numbers) Cash Bill.<br /> <br /> A6. Cash Bill. dt:08.02.2003.<br /> A7. Cash Bill. dt:03.02.2003<br /> A8. Case Sheet.<br /> <br /> X1. Nurses Medication Chart. <br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> <br /> M/<br />