By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President
This is a case alleging medical negligence against opposite parties. First opposite party is the doctor who treated the complainant and second opposite party is the hospital in which the complainant was admitted and treated.
Facts:-
1. Complainant approached first opposite party doctor with ailment to his nose. First opposite party is an Ayurvedic doctor and second opposite party hospital is an Ayurvedic hospital. He was admitted and treated at second opposite party hospital under the care of first opposite party doctor from 15-01-2007 to 01-.02-2007. Complainant was told by the doctor that there is growth of a mass inside the nose and it has to be treated and removed by inserting medicine inside the nose to cause infection. Complainant alleges that his ailment was not cured by the treatment rendered by opposite parties. Instead it increased his condition of running nose( rhinorrhoea) and he also lost his sense of smell. When he complained to the doctor that his olfactory senses are lost he was told that being ayurveda treatment it would take some time to be cured. He did not get any relief. He approached opposite party on 04-6-2008 and was advised to get admitted on 06-6-2008. He was again treated as inpatient for 16 days and was discharged. Even after several months his ailment was not cured. In 2009 he approached first opposite party and reported about this. First opposite party got angry and threatened him. Later when complainant approached another doctor on10-9-2009 he was told to consult the same doctor who has treated him negligently and has aggravated his condition. That complainant spend huge amount for the treatment. His family consisting of father, mother, two brothers and a sister depends on him. Due to the illness he is not able to do any work. Due to the inability to recognize smell he is suffering a lot of hardships. He is a bachelor and his chances of getting a good alliance has become remote due to the illness. All this has happened due to the deficiency committed by opposite parties. Complainant issued a lawyer notice. Opposite party replied raising baseless contentions. Hence this complaint. Complainant prays for Rs.30,000/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.55,000/- as compensation for loss of olfactory senses, Rs.15,000/- towards travelling expenses, and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
2. Both opposite parties have filed separate versions. First opposite party disputed the maintainability of complaint on the ground of limitation and non-jointer of necessary parties. It is submitted that the complainant was treated by Dr. E. Abdul Nazar and Dr. S. Mini at second opposite party hospital. These doctors have not been impleaded and therefore the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. Opposite party does not fully admit that complainant got admitted at opposite party hospital on the advice of first opposite party. It is submitted that complainant had undergone an operation as well as a 'thala kazhukal chikilsa' earlier. He came to second opposite party hospital with complaints of rhinorrhea, obstruction inside the nose, and persistent cold which occurred after the operation and the chikilsa undergone by him. First opposite party was then working at second opposite party hospital on monthly wages. Other doctors who then worked at second opposite party hospital have also treated the complainant. It is true that complainant was treated as inpatient from 01-02-2007. He was discharged after recovering fully. He did not put forward any further complaints at the time of discharge. Opposite party denies having told the complainant that a treatment of inserting medicine inside the nose to infect and remove the obstruction has to be done. The allegation that complainant did not recover and that he suffered from increased rhinorrhea and lost olfactory senses is denied as totally baseless. That after the first duration of treatment the complainant has come for treatment to the hospital only after one year and four months.(04-6-2008). That complainant approached for the second time only due to the confidence in the treatment rendered earlier. On second occasion the complainant came with the complaint that he is not able to sense smell. He was admitted and treated till 20-6-2008. At the time of discharge he was cured and was able to sense smell. Opposite party denies being angry to the complainant. That first opposite party has treated the complainant along with other doctors working in the hospital. There was no deficiency committed on the part of first opposite party. That the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
3. Second opposite party filed separate version. It is submitted that the allegation that complainant lost olfactory senses and suffered from persisting rhinorrhea after treatment at opposite party hospital is denied as totally false and put up only for the purpose of the case. That after discharge from opposite party hospital complainant has not come with any complaints for more than a month. This itself would prove that complaint was completely cured after treatment at opposite party hospital. The allegations of negligence are specifically denied. That complainant has not issued any notice to second opposite party. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
4. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A10 marked for complainant. Being medical negligence case parties are required to adduce detail evidence including oral evidence instead of summary trial by way of proof affidavits. First opposite party filed counter affidavit. He was present for cross examination. But on behalf of the complainant it was submitted that he does not wish to cross examine first opposite party doctor. Counsel on behalf of complainant endorsed to this effect on the counter affidavit. No further affidavit filed by second opposite party. No documents marked for opposite parties.
5. Points for consideration.
(i) Whether opposite parties are deficient in service?
(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.
6. Point(i):-
The onus to prove medical negligence rests upon the complainant. His allegation is that due to negligence committed by opposite parties he is unable to sense smell and that he is suffering from persisting cold (infection) and also has rhinorrhea. At the outset it has to be stated that apart from the pleadings and his own affirmations there is no medical evidence to establish that complainant is suffering from any such ailments at present. It is his case that a doctor who examined him on 10-9-2009 told him that his condition is due to negligence committed by the doctors who treated him earlier. Complainant did not mention the name of this doctor in E xt.A7 notice, or in his complaint or chief affidavit. In cross examination he deposed that Dr. Gopalakrishnan working in Korambayil Hospital had opined that his ailments are caused due to negligence of opposite party doctor. But complainant has not examined Dr. Gopalakrishnan as a witness nor any document produced to support this contention. Complainant has not even produced any document to show that he consulted Dr. Gopalakrishnan. The oral evidence of the complainant is totally inconsistent with his pleadings and affirmations in the affidavit. In the box he denied to have undergone ' thala kazhukal chikilsa'. Further it is deposed that he has consulted and taken treatment of other doctors including allopathy treament during the relevant period. It is also stated that at present he is not taking any treatment. There is no document to show that he is suffering from any illness at present. Some portions of the evidence of the complainant who was examined as PW1 is reproduced as under:-
"ഞാന് ചികിത്സ തേടിയത് ആയുര്വേദ ആശുപത്രിയിലാണ്. ചികിത്സിച്ചത് ആയുര്വേദ doctor ആണ് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല് ശരിയാണ്"
"2-)o എതൃകക്ഷി ആശുപത്രിയില് ചെന്നശേഷമാണ് 1-)o എതൃകക്ഷി doctor-റെ ആദ്യമായി കാണുന്നത്. 1-)o എതൃകക്ഷി കൂടാതെ വേറെ doctor-മാരും ആശുപത്രിയില് ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല് ശരിയാണ്"
"സ്ഥിരമായുളള ജലദോഷവും മൂക്കൊലിപ്പും മാറ്റുവാന് വേണ്ടിയാണ് ആദ്യമായി എതൃകക്ഷി ആശുപത്രിയില് പോയത്. 2007-ല് 18 ദിവസം കിടത്തി ചികിത്സിച്ചു. രോഗം ഭേദമായി discharge ചെയ്തു. എന്നെ discharge ചെയ്യുന്ന സമയത്ത് രോഗം ഭേദമായിരുന്നു എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല് ശരിയാണ്. ആദ്യത്തെ പ്രാവശ്യം discharge ചെയ്ത ശേഷം 1 വര്ഷവും 4 മാസവും കഴിഞ്ഞാണ് രണ്ടാമത്തെ പ്രാവശ്യം പോകുന്നത്എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല് ശരിയാണ്. ഈ കാലയളവില് എനിക്ക് smell അറിയില്ല എന്നതൊഴിച്ചാല് വേറെ അസുഖം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. ഞാന് ഈ കാലയളവില് ഈ രോഗലക്ഷണവുമായി ഇതേ ആശുപത്രിയിലും വേറെ ആശുപത്രികളിലും കാണിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. അപ്രകാരം ചികിത്സിച്ചു എന്നു കാണിക്കുവാന് യാതൊരു രേഖകളും ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല. “
“ 1 ലക്ഷം ക.യാണ് നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല് ശരിയാണ്. ഈ പരാതിയില് എത്ര സംഖ്യയാണ് ചോദിച്ചത് എന്ന് എനിക്കറിയില്ല. ഞാന് വായിച്ചു നോക്കിയാണ് പരാതി ഒപ്പിട്ടിട്ടുളളത്. കൊരമ്പയില് ആശുപത്രിയില് ജോലി ചെയ്യുന്ന Dr.Gopalakrishnan ആണ് എതൃകക്ഷി യുടെ അനാസ്ഥമൂലമാണ് ഉണ്ടായത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞത്. Notice-ലൊ പരാതിയിലൊ chief affidavit-ലോ ഞാന് ഇപ്രകാരം Dr.Gopalakrishnan ആണ് പറഞ്ഞത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. എനിക്ക് smell തിരിച്ചറിയുന്നില്ല എന്നു കാണിക്കുന്ന യാതൊരു രേഖകളും ഞാന് ഫോറത്തില് ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല. ഞാന് Dr.Gopalakrishnan-നെ കണ്ടത് 2008-ലാണ് എന്നു തോന്നുന്നു. പരാതിയില് 10-9-2009-ന്നാണ് Dr.Gopalakrishnan-നെ കണ്ടത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല് correct date അറിയില്ല.”
“ എതൃകക്ഷിയെ കാണുന്നതിന്നു രണ്ടു വര്ഷം മുമ്പ് എനിക്ക് മൂക്കിന്ന് operation ചെയ്തിരുന്നു എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല് ശരിയാണ്. തലകഴുകല് ചികിത്സ നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ല. മൂക്കിന്ന് operation ചെയ്തത് District Hospital-ന്െറ Dr.Moideenkutty-യാണ്. എതൃകക്ഷിയെ കാണുന്നതിന്നു രണ്ടര വര്ഷം മുമ്പ് അസുഖം ഉണ്ട്. Dr.Moideenkutty-യെ കാണുന്നതിന്െറ ഒന്നര വര്ഷം മുമ്പ് അസുഖം ഉണ്ട്. Dr.Gopalakrishnan-നെ കാണിച്ചതിന്ന് കടലാസുകള് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. ഇപ്പോള് യാതൊരു ചികിത്സയും ചെയ്യുന്നില്ല.”
“First dischage-ന്നു ശേഷം എനിക്ക് വേറെ എന്തെങ്കിലും അസുഖം വരികയോ ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടോ എന്നു ചോദിച്ചാല് ഞാന് allergy-ക്ക് ഗുളിക കഴിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. ഞാന് allergy-ക്ക് english മരുന്നിന്റെ ഗുളികയാണ് കഴിക്കുന്നത്. വല്ലാതെ മൂക്കൊലിക്കുമ്പോള് ഇടക്കിടെ ഗുളിക(altis) എന്ന ഗുളിക കഴിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. Allopathy Dr. Sasidharan ആണ് ഈ ഗുളിക prescribe ചെയ്തത്. അത് ആയുര്വേദ ചികിത്സക്കു ശേഷവും ഈ ഗുളിക കഴിക്കാറുണ്ട്. ഈ കാര്യങ്ങള് പരാതിയില് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല.”
7. There is nothing brought out from the oral or documentary evidence of the complainant indicating any negligence on the part of opposite parties. Further first opposite party doctor filed counter affidavit specifically denying the allegations. Complainant has not bothered to cross examine the opposite party. The evidence adduced by counter affidavit thus stands unchallenged. On such score, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. It has been held in very so many cases that the allegations of professional negligence against a doctor should be considered with care and caution as it affects the livelihood and reputation of the doctor. Baseless cases with ulterior motives not only harm the doctors or hospitals, but create negative impact on the society as a whole as it lowers the risk taking capacity of a doctor which is most inevitable in the medical field. In our view, although this is a fit case to impose compensatory costs we refrain from doing so.
8. We find opposite parties not deficient. In the result, complaint dismissed. No costs.
Dated this 23th day of August, 2011.
Sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A10
Ext.A1 : Cash bill dated, 01-02-07 from second opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A2 : Receipt dated, 29-02-07 for Rs.379/- from second opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A3(series) : Credit Bills(7 Nos.) from Ilaj Pharmacy to complainant.
Ext.A4 : O.P. Ticket dated, 04-6-08 from second opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A5 : I.P. Ticket dated, 06-6-08 from second opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A6 : Credit Bill dated, 16-6-08 from second opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 09-10-2009 by complainant's counsel
to first opposite party.
Ext.A8 : Postal receipt dated, 09-10-09 to first opposite party.
Ext.A9 : Acknowledgement card from first opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A1 0 : Reply notice dated, 30-10-2009 from opposite party's counsel to
complainant's counsel.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
