By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant on 02.05.2018 consulted the Opposite Party for treatment of back pain. The Opposite Party is an Ayurvedic Doctor who is working in a hospital namely Rapha Ortho and Spine Ayruvedic Speciality Centre, Sulthan Bathery. The Opposite Party promised that by his treatment, the ailment of the Complainant will be cured within 25 to 30 days and he warned that if, there is no treatment, there is chance of causing paralysis on one side. He wants Rs.70,000/- for the treatment. Then, the Opposite Party admitted the Complainant in the hospital on 13.05.2018 and discharged on 09.06.2018. The Complainant was treated there by uzhichil and pizhichil. She has taken tablets also and thus incurred an expenses of Rs.72,000/-. The Complainant had given Rs.25,000/- to the Opposite Party as advance on 18.05.2018. But, even after the discharge, the Complainant had no relief from back pain and she again contacted the Opposite Party who admitted her in the hospital from 23.06.2018 till 04.07.2018. But, her pain was increased and on 03.07.2018, she felt difficulty to walk. On 04.07.2018, she was discharged during this aggravated condition. Thereafter, the Complainant was admitted in WIMS Hospital, Meppadi on 12.07.2018 and was treated by Dr.Vivek Purushothaman. The doctor found vertebral bulge and spinal cord jam on Complainant and he opined that it was happened due to over massaging by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complainant learned that her decease was aggregated due to the over massaging of the Opposite Party. It was happened due to the inexperience of Opposite Party and lack of proper treatment. The Complainant was working at Israel and she had to go to Israel on 29.06.2018 which was informed to the Opposite Party by the Complainant on 02.05.2018 and 13.05.2018. But, due to the deficiency of service of Opposite Party, she was unable to go to Israel. So, she lost her job and salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Hence this complaint to get a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ of 12% per month, Rs.72,000/- towards hospital expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony with cost.
3.The Opposite Party filed version which in brief is as follows:-
He admitted that he started treatment of the Complainant for back pain. But he denied that he assured complete cure from the decease. He denied that he wants Rs.70,000/- towards treatment expenses and the Complainant incurred an expenses of Rs.72,000/- for treatment. The Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 13.05.2018 and discharged on 09.06.2018. She was again admitted on 23.06.2018 and discharged on 04.07.2018. He denied that the decease of the Complainant was aggravated due to his inexperience and over massaging. The Complainant has filed this complaint to grab money from Opposite Party under the instigation of One Ambily who was one of the staffs of Opposite Party and dismissed by Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is graduated in BAMS and he is the son of a Parambaraya vaidyan Kuttiali. He passed BAMS in the year 2016 and working as Ayurvedic Doctor in Rapha Ortho and Spine Ayurvedic Speciality Center, SulthanBathery. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Party with a complaint of lower back pain, he identified it as IVDP (Intra Vertibral Disc Prolapse) and the Opposite Party discussed with the Complainant about the problems and difficulties of her ailment. He further advised the Complainant that the recovery of such lower back pain is depends upon several matter such as taking bed rest commonly called as ‘nallirikkal’, the care and caution taken by the patient at the time and after the treatment, compliance of taking medicine and following physical exercises as directed by the Doctor and diet control (pathyam). So also the result of the treatment is depending upon the mental attitude of the patient towards treatment and the Doctor. Her cousin sister Ruby Baby was also under the treatment of Opposite Party for lower back pain. That is why, the Complainant approached Opposite Party for treatment. Thereafter, the Complainant agreed for the treatment and consented to give Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite Party towards the treatment expenses. Even though, the Complainant was admitted on 13.05.2018, actually the treatment was started on 08.05.2018 itself. During the course of treatment, due to the negligence of Complainant, she fell down in bathroom. So, her ailment got aggravated and the Opposite Party has given best treatment and so her ailment was subsided. When her relative was discharged on 05.06.2018, on request, the Complainant was also discharged on the same day with an advice to take medication, ‘nallirikkal’, and diet control (pathyam). Again, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party on 28.06.2018 with the complaints of pain. At that time, she admitted that she lifted weight and so pain revived. Even then, Opposite Party treated her and discharged on 04.07.2008. Thereafter, the Complainant never approached Opposite Party in this regard. The Opposite Party denied the opinion of DM WIMS, Meppadi as stated in the complaint. The Complainant has added such things falsely to strengthen the case. The Opposite Party never received the amount which is stated by the Complainant. He denied that the Complainant was intending to go abroad on 29.06.2018 and due to the improper treatment of Opposite Party, she could not go for work to Israel. There is no basis in this complaint. So, there is no deficiency of service from his part and he prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of
Opposite Party?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1 to A10 and Ext. B1 to Ext.B4. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- Admittedly, the Complainant was treated by the Opposite Party by admitting her in the hospital from 13.05.2018 to 09.06.2018 and from 23.06.2018 to 04.07.2018. So also, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant was treated by Opposite Party for back pain and she was treated by massaging. The allegation of the Complainant is that though she was discharged on 09.06.2018, her ailment was aggravated and she was again admitted there on 23.06.2018. According to her, even though, she was in difficulty to walk from 03.07.2018, she was discharged on 04.07.2018. She further alleged that thereafter, she was admitted in WIMS Hospital, Meppadi on 12.07.2018 and the Doctor found that her ailment was aggravated due to over massaging by Opposite Party. Thus, Complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. On the other hand, Opposite Party denied that the ailment of the Complainant was aggravated for the reason of over massaging. Thus he denied the allegation of deficiency on his part. According to him, ailment of Complainant was aggravated due to a fall in the bathroom at the hospital of the Opposite Party and she had taken heavy weight when she was bed rest after the first treatment.
7. To prove the case of the Complainant, she has given evidence as PW1. To disprove the case of Complainant, Opposite Party has given evidence as OPW1. As already stated, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant took treatment from Opposite Party for back pain in different periods. Ext.A1 to A8 is the bills related to the treatment expenses in the hospital of Opposite Party. Though the Complainant has a case that Opposite Party obtained huge amount for the treatment, she has not produced any documents to prove that Opposite Party had collected huge amount. According to Opposite Party, he wants only Rs.50,000/- for the treatment. Evidently, the Opposite Party obtained Rs.25,000/- as advance on 18.05.2018. Ext.A1 is the Bill given by the Opposite Party when he received the advance. Ext.A2 bill shows that he has obtained Rs.2100/- towards treatment expenses and Ext.A4 bill shows that he has obtained Rs.35,500/- less Rs. 25,000/- as treatment expenses in addition to Rs. 2100/-. So it cannot be held that the Opposite Party has obtained huge amount from Complainant for treatment as alleged.
8. It is alleged by the Complainant that she was admitted in the hospital of Opposite Party from 13.05.2018 to 09.06.2018 and thereafter from 23.06.2018 to 04.07.2018. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of treatment of Complainant by Opposite Party. There were uzhichil and pizhichil and she was discharged on 09.06.2018 after the first period of treatment. It is evident that again she was admitted on 23.06.2018 due to aggravation of back pain. The allegation of the Complainant is that when she was in difficulty to walk, she was discharged from there and thus she was forced to get admission in WIMS Hospital, Meppadi on 12.07.2018. According to her, she was informed by Dr. Vivek Purushothaman who treated her in WIMS Hospital that her pain was aggravated due to over massaging by Opposite Party. But the specific case of the Opposite Party is that she was fell down in the bathroom of the hospital of Opposite Party before her pain increased and even though her ailment got aggravated, it was subsided due to his treatment. He specifically alleged that she was admitted in the second time since she took heavy weight during the period of rest. According to him, the recovery of lower back pain is depends upon bed rest commonly called as ‘nallirikkal’, the care and caution taken by the patient at the time and after the treatment, compliance of taking medicine and following physical exercises as directed by the Doctor and diet control (pathyam). So according to Opposite Party, her disease was aggravated due to the fall and lifting of heavy weight. Ext.A9 is the Discharge Summary of DMWIMS, Meppadi. It shows that the pain of the Complainant was increased after lifting heavy weights. These facts are suppressed by the Complainant in the complaint. During the cross-examination also, she denied that she was fell down and she took heavy weight.
9. In evidence, PW1 admitted that she had given complaint to Sulthan Bathery Police and she was directed to file the complaint. Ext.B1 is the copy of the Complaint given by the Complainant before Sulthan Bathery police. She suppressed this fact in the complaint. Ext.B2 is the decision taken by the Sub Inspector, SulthanBathery. It is very interesting to note that as per Ext.B1, the Complainant had given complaint about the allegation of improper treatment is not against the Opposite Party but, against the father of Opposite Party, Dr.Kuttialy. She specifically alleged deficiency of service in Ext.B1 against the father of Opposite Party Dr. Kuttialy. But from Ext.B2 it can be seen that the police had taken the complaint against the Opposite Party and the matter was discussed in the presence of Dr. Kuttialy also. The police directed the Complainant to give complaint before Court and thus closed the complaint. So even though, the complaint is against Opposite Party before this commission, Ext.B1 shows that the Complainant has given complaint against Dr. Kuttialy before the Police. Ext.B3 and B4 show that the Opposite Party is a graduate in BAMS. So the overall evidence in this case would go to show that the decease of the Complainant was aggravated due to fall in bathroom and taking heavy weight and not due to the alleged improper treatment of Opposite Party. Moreover, the Complainant has not examined any medical experts to show that the problem to Complainant was happened due to the improper treatment of Opposite Party. Her specific case is that Dr. Vivek Purushothaman found vertebral bulge and spinal cord jam on Complainant due to over massaging by the Opposite Party. But, the Complainant had not examined this doctor to prove that vertebral bulge and spinal cord jam on Complainant was happened due to over massaging by the Opposite Party. Though, the Complainant had filed witness list to examine this doctor, her sister Ruby and her daughter, the reason for non examination of those is known to the Complainant alone. Thus the Complainant has failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. So Point No.1 is answered against the Complainant.
10. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of June 2022.
Date of Filing:-17.12.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. A. M. Beena. Nil.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Shaheer Ali. A. Doctor.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Receipt for Advance payment. Dt:18.05.2018.
A2. Copy of Receipt. Dt:04.07.2018.
A3. Copy of Cash Bill. Dt:04.07.2018.
A4. Copy of Receipt. Dt:05.06.2018.
A5. Copy of Cash Bill. Dt:23.06.2018.
A6. Copy of Cash Bill. Dt:06.06.2018.
A7. Copy of Cash Bill. Dt:07.06.2018.
A8. Copy of Cash Memo. Dt:02.06.2018.
A9. Discharge Summary from DM WIMS, Hospital, Wayanad.
A10. Copy of MRI Scan Lumbosacral Spine (Plain). Dt:26.10.2020.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Copy of Police Complaint given by Complainant before Sulthan
Bathery Police. Fy:29.08.2018.
B2. Copy of Police Report.
B3. Copy of BAMS Certificate.
B4. Copy of Certificate of Registration. Dt:04.03.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
