By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a Lawyer in profession who met with an injury in between the thump and index finger which resulted the cut of tendon of thump in the left hand. The Complainant consulted the Opposite Party who sutured the wound and applied the bandage. The Complainant was further advised for dressing the wound on 3 day after suturing. In the review check up and dressing the wound, the Complainant was not informed of the cut of tendon. The mobility of the thump came to an end and it was also informed the Opposite Party doctor. The Opposite Party could make out the cut of tendon in a delayed stage and at that time only the Complainant was referred for higher center for further check up in suspicion of tendon injury. Even on the 3 day for review the Complainant informed the Opposite Party <br /> (Contd...2)<br /> 2<br /> the immobility of the thump whereas the Opposite Party was least bothered about it. On 06.07.2007 in the review check up, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the tendon is cut and it is to be sutured and a reference letter was also given. The Complainant consulted an another doctor and operation was done suturing the tendon. The delay in the suturing of tendon is the result of the improper treatments of the Opposite Party. The Complainant has to suffer a lot effective surgery became more difficult due to the delay. More over the exploration of the wound and suturing of the tendon became more serious being it was not done in time. It was also informed the Complainant that due to the delay in suturing the tendon the chance of disability of the organ is possible. The act of the Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. The negligence on the part of the Opposite Party in diagnosing the cut of tendon is nothing but deficiency in service the complaint is to be compensated along with cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version is as follows: The consultation of the Complainant with the Opposite Party on 29.6.2007 for treatments of the injury in between the thump and index finger is admitted. The Complainant was advised to consult an orthopedic surgeon. The suturing of the wound was only to subside the profuse of blood and a pressure bandage was also applied. A reference letter to the orthopedic surgeon was given to the Complainant on the very same day. How ever the patient came to the Opposite Party on 3 day for review. The Complainant was not ready to avail the treatments of orthopedic surgeon and requested the Opposite Party for dressing. On the 7th day again the Complainant came to the Opposite Party for cleaning the injury and on that day the Opposite Party was informed by the Complainant that the reference letter given was lost. On the 7th day the sutures were removed and an another reference letter was given. The allegation of the Complainant that lack of attention on the part of the Opposite Party in managing the injury is absolutely false. The Opposite Party had informed the Complainant the cut of tendon not in vice verse as alleged. The <br /> (Contd...3)<br /> 3<br /> suturing was done to check the flow of blood. The allegations as such the Complainant was given advise on 3rd day for review is false. The removal of suture was on 06.07.2007 and only at that time the tendon injury was informed to the Complainant is denied. The Complainant was informed of the tendon cut in time and reference letter was also given, if any delay caused in repairing the tendon, the responsibility lies on the Complainant alone. The time required for the recovery of tendon cutif sutured on the 1st or 7th day have no difference. The allegation of the Complainant for the consulting and the treatment from other center is not in any way connected to the Opposite Party. The compensation claimed by the Complainant is not based on any accountability. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious and it is to be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> 3. The points in consideration are:-<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?.<br /> 2.Relief and cost. <br /> <br /> 4. Point No.1:- The complainant filed affidavit swearing the allegations. Exts.A1 to A9 are marked for the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed affidavit. The case sheet of the treatments is marked as Ext.B1. <br /> <br /> 5. The Complainant's case is that the Opposite Party treated the Complainant disregarding the cut of tendon. The suturing of the wound without repairing the tendon was done. There is negligence on the part of the Opposite Party in the treatment given to the Complainant. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant was informed of the tendon- cut and advised for orthopedic consultation on the very same day when the Complainant came for the treatments. The suturing and further follow up treatment were given on the compelsion of the Complainant. <br /> (Contd...4)<br /> 4<br /> As admitted by the Opposite Party the Complainant was given treatment including the suturing on 29.6.2007. It is pertinent to note that the district hospital provide with all facilities is not in a distant place from the Opposite Party's clinic. An expert witness was examined as PW2 who explored the wound and sutured the tendon. According to the testimony of the expert witness the repair of tendon if done without delay the surgery will become more easier. The Opposite party made a review check up on the 3rd and 7th day and sutures were removed on the 7th day from the clinic of the Opposite Party. It is not reasonable to consider that the Opposite Party attended the treatment under the insistent demand of the Complainant. According to the expert opinion a patient of such an injury is to be given first aid and he is to be referred for surgery without any delay. The Opposite party further contended that letter of reference for higher center was given on the very same day when the Complainant was given treatment, it is not supported by any evidence. Ext.A1 is the reference letter addressed to doctor T.P. Sureshkumar Ortho Surgeon only on the 7th day, after the treatments started, the Complainant was given the letter of reference. It is also admitted by the Opposite Parties that if the repairing of the tendon is done without delay the complication of the surgery could be lessened. The exploration of the wound from an another center was forced to be done by the Complainant if proper advise was given. We are in the opinion that there is negligence on the part of the Opposite Party in the way of treatments given to the Complainant. There is a deficiency in service and point No.1 is found accordingly. <br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2:- The Complainant had to suture the tendon from other centers . For the treatments in other hospitals the Complainant had to spent around Rs. 4,000/-. It is not how ever established in evidence that the delay in suturing the tendon was the only reason for spending such an amount. Any how the treatments of the Opposite Party caused the Complainant to undergo further sufferings and the delay in healing up of the wound. The <br /> (Contd...5)<br /> 5<br /> Opposite Party has to give the Complainant the compensation of Rs. 4,000/- towards cost Rs.1,000/-. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is party allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) as compensation along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). The Opposite Party is directed to comply with this order within one month from the date of receiving this order.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of September 2008.