IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                     BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

                                  Tmt  Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                         MEMBER

F.A.NO.679/2012

(Against order in CC.NO.86/2010 on the file of the DCDRC, Krishnagiri)

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2021     

Minor P.Vaniesh Kumar

Rep. by N.F.Natural Guardian

Father K.Palanisamy

D.No.B-8, Premier Mills Quarters                                   M/s. J. Ranjani Devi

Belathur Post, Hosur Taluk                                                Counsel for                

Krishnagiri District                                                          Appellant /Complainant

                                                         Vs.

1.       Dr.Rajesh Kumar

Vijay Hospitals

No.76-R, Old Bangalore Road

Hosur- 635 109

2.       Dr. Mrs. Rekha Rajesh

Vijay Hospitals

No.76-R, Old Bangalore Road

Hosur – 635 109

3.       Dr. Maruthi

Amma Hospitals, Bagalur Road                             M/s. AAV Partners

Hosur Town and Post                                         Counsel for R1 to R3

4.       Dr. Ramkumar

C/o. Vijay Hospitals                                                

No.76-R, Old Bangalore Road                                Served Called absent                           

Hosur- 635 109                                                  Respondents/   opposite parties

          The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.28.12.2011 in CC.No.86/2010.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT   

1.        This appeal has been filed by the complainant as against the order dt.28.11.2011 passed by the District Commission, Krishnagiri,  in CC.No.86/2010,  by dismissing the complaint. 

2.       The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

          The complainant is a minor, represented by his father.   The complainant would submit that while he was studying in Vivekananda School at Bengalur, on 26.8.2010, he was taken to the opposite parties/Vijay hospital at Hosur, by his father due to pain in his right testicles.  The 1^st opposite party is the Managing Director of the Hospital.  The 2^nd Respondent is a doctor attached to the said hospital.  On examining the boy/complainant, 1^st opposite party informed the father of the minor petitioner that a small surgery has to be done emergently, within one hour, and after the surgery, the petitioner can go home.  Believing the words of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant was admitted by his father at Vijay Hospital and had paid a sum of Rs.15000/-.  But the opposite parties had not given any bill.  The father of the complainant also purchased medicines @Rs.256/-.  After sometime the 3^rd opposite party, who is the anesthetist came to the hospital on the request made by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  3^rd opposite party had administered the anesthesia, and the 4^th opposite party had conducted the operation and removed the right testicles of the minor appellant viz. P.Vaniesh Kumar.   But the opposite parties had not informed about the operation to the father of the minor complainant, and they have not obtained any signature from the parents of the complainant.  But during the operation, since over dosage of anesthesia was given by the 3^rd opposite party, the minor complainant had gone to coma stage.  In the meantime, the 3^rd Respondent left the hospital.  Hence he was informed about the situation by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Immediately, the 3^rd opposite party came back to the hospital at 6.30 pm., on 26.8.2010.  On noticing the condition of the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party advised that the appellant should be taken to Narayana Hyrudalaya Hospital at Bangalore.  Immediately, the parent of the minor took the complainant to the said hospital.  3^rd opposite party also accompanied them.  The complainant was admitted in the said hospital on the same day at 7.00 pm.  On examining the complainant, the doctors at Narayana Hyrudalaya hospital have informed the parents that the operation conducted by the opposite parties 1 to 4 is wrong and due to over dosage of anesthesia the brain of the complainant was affected and is suffering for breathing.  The father of the complainant again approached the opposite parties hospital on 29.8.2010, asking for the details of the surgery conducted on his son, i.e., the complainant herein.  The surgery note was issued to the complainant’s father by the opposite parties hospital, signed by one Dr.K.Hariharan for Dr.Ramkumar who is the 4^th opposite party herein.  In the said note it is mentioned that the findings is “Torsion testis”.  In fact when a patient is suffering from the said “Torsion testis”, he could not walk a distance.  But the complainant walked a distance to Vijay Hospitals, alongwith his father, and hence the diagnosis of the opposite parties was wrong.  Due to wrong diagnosis the wrong operation was conducted and due to over dosage of anesthesia the complainant went upto the stage of coma.  On account of this the parents of the complainant had undergone mental agony.  Hence the complaint. 

3.       Countering the allegation of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party had filed their version, which was adopted by all the opposite parties, as follows:

          The father of the complainant came to the opposite parties hospital alongwith the minor complainant on 26.8.2010.  But it is false to say that the 1^st opposite party had not informed the father of the minor petitioner about the surgery to be conducted.  In fact the 1^st opposite party did not see the complainant’s father as well as he was not given any kind of treatment to the complainant’s son.  Further the 2^nd opposite party was not available in Hosur on 26.8.2010.  The complainant did not pay even a single paise to the hospital, and it is false to say that he has paid Rs.15000/- and no receipt was  issued.  Without receipt no amount will be collected.  There is no doubt that the 4^th opposite party performed operation to the minor petitioner to remove the right testicles.  3^rd opposite party is the anesthetist.    The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had not been involved in the operation of the complainant.  Before commencing the operation, the 4^th opposite party explained about the operation and obtained their signatures in the consent form.  It is denied by the opposite parties that they diagnosed wrongly that the complainant had torsion testis.  Actually the complainant had concealed the material facts that the minor complainant was recommended by another doctor by name Dr.Subramaniam who diagnosed torsion testis based on the scan report dt.26.8.2010.  The allegation of the complainant that the removal of right testicles by the 1^st opposite party is wrong and the 1^st opposite party had performed the operation as per medical ethics to rescue the complainant.  It is not correct to say that the minor son had gone upto the stage of coma due to over dosage of anesthesia.  The complainant and his parents already approached Dr.Subramaniam and took the ultrasonography.  The impression of the ultrasonography was torsion testis-right side, the said Dr.Subramaniam sent the complainant to the 4^th opposite party for operation.  Only on the necessity an emergent operation has been performed without even waiting for deposit of money.  The 4^th opposite party removed the right testicle, which was twisted around the cord.  The operation was done only to rescue the complainant as per medical term.  During the operation the complainant had the respiratory depression and he was resuscitated.  Therefore he was shifted to the higher centre viz. Narayana Hyrudalaya hospital for the ventilator support and the 3^rd opposite party had also accompanied them.  The opposite parties have not committed any negligence or wrong treatment.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint. 

4.       In order to prove their case, respective proof affidavits were filed before the District Commission and 12 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A12 on the side of complainant, and 9 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B9 on the side of the opposite parties. 

5.       The District Commission after analyzing the materials available on record, had dismissed the complaint on the ground that absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Aggrieved over the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 

6.       Brief facts, which are germane to decide the issue are as follows:

          The learned counsel for the complainant would submit that on 26.8.2010, the complainant / appellant reports to the 1^st opposite party hospital with the pain in the right testicle.  The opposite parties obtained consent letter not only from the complainant and also from his father as seen under Ex.B2, and again from his sister as seen under Ex.B5 and from mother and elder sister as per Ex.B6, and consent from father and sister under Ex.B7 and consent from his mother and sister as per Ex.B8.  For conducting operation, there is no need to obtain consent from all the relatives of the patient.  Obtaining signature in five consent forms, would create a suspicion on the act committed by the opposite parties.  Before commencing operation, the weight of the complainant was not recorded either before doing operation or during administration of anesthesia.  Test dose of anesthesia was not given. Discharge summary was also not issued.  Spinal anesthesia was given to the minor patient, which did not suit the complainant since he developed Bradycardia, Hypoxia, Ischemic Emcephalopathy.  The learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention to Ex.B5, which is the consent letter signed by the sister of the patient, wherein the top it has been stated as D.I.L i.e., Dangerously Ill List.  Therefore, from the said document it could be seen that the child of the complainant was within the purview of Dangerously Ill List.  The child of the complainant had developed complication only at 3.30. p.m.  The surgery note was prepared by the 4^th opposite party who has nothing to do with the management of the patient.  All these infirmity in the act of the opposite parties would show that they have carelessly and negligently conducted the operation.  In fact at later point of time, the complainant was admitted at Uma Kumar Hospital where he had administered spinal anesthesia.  But the complainant did not develop any complication in the said procedure which was done on 24.10.2010,  which would show that due care was not taken by the opposite parties at the time of conducting operation.  Therefore, there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  But without considering all these aspects, the District Commission had dismissed the complaint. 

7.       Countering the submissions, the learned counsel for Respondent/ opposite parties would submit that minor complainant was referred by one Dr.Subramaniam, and brought to the Vijay Hospital on 26.8.2010 at 2 p.m.  As the patient had already taken USG scan test, which showed Torsion Testis on the right side, as per the medical literature the boy was brought in an emergent condition, for which he was treated at the earliest by the Respondents/ opposite parties.  The parents of the boy were informed about the condition of the boy   that he needs immediate surgery.  Only after the consent of the parent, the operation was conducted.  During the course of operation, the patient went into respiratory distress, and sudden bradycardia, immediately the patient was resuscitated and injection adrenaline 1 amp. was administered to revive the patient.  Thereafter at 6.00 p.m he was taken to Narayana Hyrudalaya hospital for ventilator support and subsequently the complainant never came back to the opposite parties.  The complainant had stated that the patient had undergone Orchipexy under spinal anesthesia on 26.10.2010 at Uma Kumar Hospital as per Ex.A12.  Therefore it is evident that the subsequent hospitals also had suggested the same line of treatment as advised by the Respondents, and thus there is no negligence committed in treating the complainant.  Moreover, no expert evidence was submitted by the complainant to show that the Respondent/opposite parties have committed negligence.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

8.       Keeping the submissions carefully in mind, and perusal of the documents the only question falls for consideration is

Whether the Appellant/complainant has established that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties?   

9.       It is an admitted fact that on 26.8.2010 the minor boy was brought to the opposite parties hospital with pain on the right testicle.  It is also an admitted fact that the patient was referred by one Dr.Subramaniam.  The father of the complainant brought the complainant to the opposite parties hospital at 2.00 p.m, alongwith USG test, which suggested torsion testicles on the right side.  On noticing the condition of the boy, the opposite parties suggested that an emergent surgery should be conducted, which was also duly informed to the parents, and relatives of the boy who had signed the consent forms.  Now the doubt was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no need to obtain consent in five different forms.  For which the learned counsel for opposite parties had replied that the consent for inpatient treatment was obtained as per Ex.B2, consent was obtained for the admission as per Ex.B5, which was signed by the elder sister of the complainant.  Consent for operation / procedure was obtained as per Ex.B6, which was signed by the mother and the sister of the complainant.  Informed consent was obtained as per Ex.B7, which was signed by the father and sister of the complainant.  After clinical findings was done, consent for removal of testis etc. was obtained from the sister and the mother of the complainant as per Ex.B8. 

          On perusal of these documents under Ex.B2 and B5 to B8, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have obtained consent from the parents and relatives of the complainant at every stage.  Since it is a surgery, which was done on emergent basis, all the consent signatures were obtained.  These are all the usual practice which would be done by any hospitals. If they failed to obtain such consent then it would tantamount to deficiency on their part.  Therefore, the allegation of the complainant in this regard cannot be taken as a valid one. 

          For the allegation of the complainant with regard to removal of testicles and administration of anesthesia, the counsel for the Respondents / opposite parties has rightly argued about the need for operation.  It was stated by the opposite parties that the diagnosis for removal of testis was primarily done by one Dr.Subramaniam, and alongwith the USG report and as per the advise of the said doctor only the father of the complainant got his son admitted in the opposite parties hospital.    Therefore, we cannot find fault with regard to the diagnosis as against the opposite parties.

          The second allegation is about the administration of spinal anesthesia.  As per the case history the opposite parties have administered only 3cc of anesthesia on the complainant, whereas as per medical text, which was produced before the District Commission the admissible limit for anesthesia was given as 4 ml.   The allegation with regard to the development of respiratory distress was due to the wrong administration of spinal anesthesia was also not proved by the complainant.  As was rightly held by the learned District Commission the Narayana Hyrudalaya Hospital also had not stated in their discharge summary under Ex.A11 that the state of respiratory distress had occurred due to the wrong procedure followed by the opposite parties.  Moreover, the complainant himself had stated that subsequently the complainant had undergone Orchipexy under spinal anesthesia on 26.10.2010 at Uma Kumar Hospital, and there was no complication. Therefore as stated by the Respondents that the subsequent hospitals also had suggested the same line of treatment as advised by the Respondents, absolutely no negligence can be attributable against the opposite parties.  In view of the submissions made by the Respondents/ opposite parties, and on perusal of records, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the District Commission that the opposite parties have followed the protocol as per the medical terminology in treating the complainant, is well founded one.  Moreover the 3^rd opposite party himself admittedly had accompanied the complainant when he was being shifted to Narayana Hyurudalaya Hospital for ventilator support.  We hereby concur with findings of the District Commission in this regard that he acted in accordance with medical ethics.  

          If there is any negligence committed by the opposite parties, the complainant/ a minor boy would have suffered some problems subsequently in carrying out his normal work.  But, nothing as such stated is by the complainant.  Therefore, absolutely we do not find any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  The allegation of the complainant shows that he is trying to make mountain out of mole.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant had miserably failed to establish any medical negligence and thereby we   concur with the findings of the District Commission.  Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 

10.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Krihnagiri, in CC.No.86/2010 dt.28.12.2011.   There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                            R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT