BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 58/11.
THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Ramappa @ Ramudu S/o. Dulayya, Age 30 years,
Occ: Nil, Dinni Vilage, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- Dr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Balankuu Orthopedics &
Maternity, Hospital, Basavanagar, Opp: Munnurwadi School, Basavana Bhavi Chowk, Raichur.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposite to pay an amount of
Rs. 5 Lakhs with a direction to opposite not to indulge and report negligence with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
Date of institution :- 13-04-11.
Notice served :- 24-08-11.
Date of disposal :- 19-12-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Gururaj Joshi, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. M. Nagaraj, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant against the opposite doctor U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) with a direction to opposite not to indulge and repeat negligence with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, on 18-11-06 complainant under gone medical treatment to his left lower limb at BIRRD (Trust) Hospital, Tirupathi, as he was getting difficulties in normal walking and on 06-12-06, he undergone operation and thereafter on 07-12-06 he was discharged. He was provided LIKAFO to move freely without any pain. Thereafter he started facing some problems to his left leg, thereafter, on 17-08-07 approached opposite doctor with medical history. He insisted him to pay Rs. 10,000/- for treatment. He was not able to pay Rs. 10,000/- on that day accordingly he was discharged on 18-07-07. On 09-08-07, he approached one Dr. Chowdiki, Orthopedic, at Raichur due to severe pain in his left lower limb, he got examined and advised to follow up treatment with prescriptions. He not completely recovered, hence, on 23-08-07 again he approached opposite doctor with a complaint of severe pain to left lower limb. As per the advise and line of treatment his left leg tilted forcefully, while he was in conscious, he suffered severe pain. Thereafter he took treatment as an in-patient till 27-08-07 and he was discharged on that day. He spent happy life for few days after treatment with opposite and again pain developed in the leg and became straight, complainant was not able to hold it. He expressed his difficulties before the opposite, but he advised him, as it will become to normal position within short period. On 31-03-09 he approached but same was advised was given by opposite. Hence on 14-09-09 he approached one Dr. Harish Murthy, Orthopedic, Surgeon of Raichur and explained the difficulties with medical history, after verification of all the records and after conducting x-ray examination he opined that, his left lower limb was broken, it cannot be regenerate. Hence he was under panic, returned to village and again on 15-09-09, he consulted opposite doctor, he also opined that, his left lower limb was broken and it cannot be set- rated. This incident happens due to negligent act of opposite, he suffered mentally, physically and financially, as such he filed this complaint against opposite for the reliefs as noted in it.
3. The opposite doctor appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed his written version by denying all the allegations made against him, he admitted the treatment given by him on 17-08-07 and not on 23-08-07. It is stated by him that, considering the stiffness of the knee first gentle manipulation was done under spinal anesthesia. Considering his stiffness second manipulation was done after two days. After two manipulations complainant was able to bend his limb only to 40 degrees because knee was very stiff so further forced manipulation was not done by taking into consideration of the health condition of the complainant. The complainant was under gone operation in Tirupati, Hospital with the history of polio attack to his left leg. This fact was not informed by the complainant in his complaint with an intention to get monetary benefit from the opposite. All other allegations made by him are specifically denied and prayed for to reject the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite doctor wrongly noted in discharge card dt. 18-07-07 as patient was discharged from his hospital against the medical advise and thereafter on 23-08-07 he got admission in the hospital with an assurance that, his left leg will be normal after treatment, he was taken to operation theatre twisted his left leg with the assistance of staff when he was in concisions, due to such act of opposite swelling came on left limb he was again treated and discharged, but after some days his left leg become unfolding position, it was because of irreteriable by force by the opposite negligently with his staff and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in his service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In negative.
(2) In negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the opposite doctor was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Totally documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 are marked.
7. In the present case, we have referred this complaint with documents to get the opinion of expert’s to Medical Board, Raichur. The learned head of the Department of Orthopedic, Institute of Medical Sciences (Medical Education, Government of Karnataka) requested to this Forum to refer the complainant to appear before the Medical Board for his examination. After receipt of this letter, the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, there is no such procedure prescribed in the C.P. Act and thereby he not pressed the said application. Hence referring the matter to Medical Board was dropped. As per the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of K. Kishan Rao V/s. Nikhil Super Specialty, Hospital reported in 2010 SAR (Civil) 550, there is no need to refer the complaint to get such medical opinion before registering this case. Hence we have proceeded further.
8. In the instant case, the some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties are:-
1. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant first got operated the left lower limb in BIRRD Hospital, Tirupati..
2. It is further undisputed fact that, on 09-08-07 one Dr. Chowdaki Orthopedic, Surgeon Raichur examined and treated the complainant for pain to his left lower limb.
3. It is further undisputed fact that, complainant approached opposite doctor on 23-08-07 wherein he admitted as an in patient and treated him till 27-08-07 thereafter complainant spent happy life with good results of the said treatment
4. It is also admitted fact that, on 14-09-09 complainant approached one Dr. Harish Murthy for the difficulties in his left leg.
9. With these undisputed facts, now let us appreciate the evidence of the complainant with documents of the parties to see as to whether the first allegations made by him is proved or not.
10. The first allegations made by him against opposite is that, he approached the said doctor for the first time for treating his left limb for severe pain on 17-05-07, but he discharged on 18-07-07 with false endorsement that complainant got discharged against medical advise.
11. In support of this allegation complainant relied upon documentary evidences Ex.P-2 the patient card issued by opposite hospital dt. 17-05-07 and Ex.P-3 discharge summary. Opposite filed Ex.R-1 Patient’s detail fee record dt. 17-05-07 and Ex.R-2 consent of complainant for admission dt. 17-05-07 which includes discharge summary. On going through the document Ex.P-3 discharge summary produced by the complainant himself and document Ex.R-2 discharge summary issued by the opposite are having similar facts regarding admission and discharge. These two documents shows that, complainant admitted in the hospital of opposite on 17-05-07 for his heal flap injury treatment. He was advised some medicines and thereafter he was discharged as admitted by himself in his complaint and he was not able to pay the required fee of the hospital. The contents of the complaint as noted in Para-5 & 6 reveals different facts, as he was admitted to the hospital of opposite on 17-05-07 for treatment of his lower limb, as he was getting severe pain there is no similarity with regard to the facts noted in Para- 5 & 6 of his complaint with the contents of documentary evidences Ex.P-3 & Ex.R-2 as the patient admitted for heal flap injury. Hence we are of the view that, there is no merit in this allegation of the complainant against opposite doctor.
12. Now coming to the second allegation made by the complainant against opposite doctor is as noted in Para-8 of the complaint and as noted in his affidavit-evidences. According to him, on 23-08-07, he took admission in the hospital of opposite on the assurance by the opposite doctor as his left leg will become normal after treatment by him, admission in the hospital on 23-08-07 and discharged him on 27-08-07 vide discharge card Ex.P-4 & Ex.R-2 there is no dispute about these documents. Ex.P-4 and Ex.R-2 clearly discloses that, this complainant admitted in the hospital of opposite doctor on the complaint of post surgical stiffness to his left leg, that means to say that, he started suffering stiffness in the left leg due to operation in the hospital at Tirupati. According to the contents of complaint and his affidavit-evidence, the main allegation against opposite doctor is that, when the doctor twisted his left leg knee bone fracture he was conscious at that time. This fact made known to him only on 14-09-09 when he approached another doctor Harish Murthy vide prescriptions Ex.P-5 dt. 14-09-09 and X-ray Film annexed to it, he took support of Ex.P-3 another X-ray Film said to have taken by another doctor Chowdiki dt. 09-08-07. According to complainant X-ray Film dt. 09-08-07 Ex.P-3 shows different nature of the knee bone as it was in order at that time. X-ray Film dt. 14-09-09 is showing the broken bone of knee joint. Accordingly his allegation the opposite doctor twisted his leg and at that time knee joint broken
13. In pursuance of this allegation, we have gone through Ex.P-3 discharge summary filed by the complainant and Ex.R-2 discharge summary filed by the opposite. We have perused the X-ray Film Ex.P-3 taken by the doctor Chowdiki dt. 09-08-07 and X-ray Film annexed to Ex.P-5 dt. 14-09-09.
14. It is a proved fact that, the complainant was suffering from post surgical stiffness, he admitted in the hospital of opposite. Doctor adopted manipulation downward SA and after two days again he made the second manipulation downward. He was discharged on 27-08-07, complainant was comfortable, coherent, conscious, afiest with no fresh complaints. Therefore he prescribed tablets. This fact is admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint as well as in his affidavit-evidence that, he led happy life for few days, hence in view of the fact, we are of the view that, the line of treatment adopted by the opposite doctor in between 23-08-07 and 27-08-07 is a recognized mode of treatment among other mode of treatments if any. As regards to the pain received while treating him, document Ex.P-5 clearly goes to show that, there was an application of spinal anesthesia to the complainant, hence we are not agreeing with the allegations made by the complainant against opposite doctor with regard to negligence in treatment in between 23-08-07 and 27-08-07. At the time of arguments by both the parties, it reveals that, the complainant was suffering from polio attack to his left leg, for that reason, he admitted in the hospital at Tirupati. It is quiet natural to develop post surgical stiffness to his left leg. Opposite gave treatment for such post surgical stiffness as a prudent doctor and expert in the field. As such we have not convinced that, opposite shown his negligence in giving treatment as we observed earlier that, the complainant admitted in the hospital of opposite on 23-08-07 and X-ray Film by doctor Chowdiki also on 09-07-09. Thereafter Dr. Harish Murthy was taken X-ray Film annexed to Ex.P-5 on 14-09-09 that means to say that, there was a gap of round about two years in between the treatment taken by the complainant in the hospital of opposite and X-ray Film taken by Dr. Harish Murthy. No body knows what happened in that long period. Merely saying that, Ex.P-5 is showing broken bones is not sufficient to say that, it was happened in the hands of opposite only. No complications arisen after discharge of complainant by opposite and thereafter for some days. If, really the bone was broken in the hands of opposite, then there are no chances for the complainant to say that, he led happy life for few days. Accordingly, we have not find any kind of negligence on the part of opposite doctor in this case. As such we have not referred other documents pertaining to admitted facts and also other minor points urged before us, as those are not material to consider the negligence of opposite, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
15. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint
POINT NO.3:-
16. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant against opposite is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 19-12-11)
Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur.
