BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE.

PRESENT:   THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L.,           PRESIDENT 

                                                 HIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC.       MEMBER – II

CC. 43 / 2007                                           

                                 MONDAY THE 12^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2011.

Violet,

W/o. Mr. Sekaran,

Chettikuppam Village,

Gudiyattam Taluk.                                                               …  Complainant.

       - Vs –

Dr. V. D. Thirugnanam,

Assistant Civil Surgeon,

Bhuvana Surgical Hospital,

No.10, Sannathi Street,

Nellorepet,

Gudiyattam.                                                                                     … Opposite party.   

                                                                        ……

              This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 14.6.11, in the presence of Thiru. T.N.K.Selvaraj, Advocate  for the complainant and Thiru. V. Annamalai & Thiru K.M.Boopathy, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

            Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District.

I.          The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows:

             The complainant is a permanent resident of Chettikuppam Village, Gudiyattam Taluk.   She is a married woman, having two children.  In 2005 the complainant developed pain in her abdomen and she approached ESI Hospital, Vellore.  The doctor concerned directed the complainant to have a pelvic scan and accordingly she had been to Sri Anand Ultrasound Scan Centre and undergone scan as per the direction of the doctor.  As per the scan report, the complainant had a pelvic mass on the right side of the uterus and retro uterine region.  The report also indicates the mass as well capsulated.   The location of the mass is clearly given.  Apart from that the contents of the mass is also indicated as fluid debris and solid substance i.e. indicating that the mass contain pus.   The complainant approached the opposite party for further treatment as the ESI Hospital authorities also informed her that she might have to undergo surgery or draining of pus.   The opposite party after examining the complainant, instructed the complainant and her husband that immediate surgery is necessary to remove the mass.   Accordingly,  the complainant  admitted on 8.8.05 at Bhuvana Surgical Hospital run by the opposite party.  On 11.8.05 the opposite party also opened her abdomen by surgery and found that the mass is only of formation of hard pus cells.  Finding that the pus is to be drained only by rectal drainage system, he immediately closed the surgical opening of her obdomen and carried out rectal drainage.  After the surgery and draining of pus the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 28.8.05.  At the time of discharge, the opposite party prescribed some medicines for follow up.  As per the prescription and advise by the opposite party, the complainant was taking the medicine for more than nine months.    Though the opposite party drained the pus by rectal drainage system, the oozing of pus through rectum did not stop after the surgery.  But, the same was resulted in formation of fistula.  Even subsequent to the discharge, the complainant approached the opposite party on several occasions and explained her difficulties.  But the opposite party simply neglected the complainant and told her that oozing of pus is a permanent feature and she had to take medicine life long.  On account of the fistula and oozing out of pus, the complainant was put to distress and physical discomfort.   Though the complainant paid a sum of Rs.15,500/- to the opposite parties towards the charges for the surgery, the opposite party did not perform his part of the work as the surgeon.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the complainant. 

2.         As the oozing out of pus could not be stopped by the opposite party the complainant went to Government Hospital, Chennai in July 2006.  The complainant was thoroughly examined by one Dr.Prof. Srikumari Damodaran and she found that the complainant has developed fistula.  The complainant was admitted on 7.7.06 and discharged on 17.7.06 by the Government Hospital at Chennai.  But in view of the surgical negligence by the opposite party the problem could not be solved immediately even by  the doctors at Government Hospital, Chennai.  Again the complainant was admitted on 25.5.07 in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Proctology, Government Hospital, Chennai.  Again she underwent fistulectomy and only then oozing of pus was stopped and the fistula was removed in all and she was discharged on 6.6.07.   She was also advised by the doctors that the surgery should have been done by the Gastroenterologist even at the first instance so as to avoid formation of fistula and oozing of pus.  But the opposite party undertook to do the said surgery and did not advice the complainant properly and received a sum of Rs.15,500/-.  After care given by the opposite party from June to July 2006 was also absolutely nothing.   She had to undergo surgery twice after the inefficient treatment given by the opposite party, thereby incurring further expenses of Rs.20,000/-.   Even before going to Chennai, the complainant approached the opposite party for further treatment in order to stop oozing out of the pus and removal of fistula.  For that the opposite party demanded Rs.1,50,000/- for another surgery and treatment.      After the discharge from the Government Hospital, Chennai and after finding that the subsequent illness after the surgery at the opposite party’s hospital is only due to the inefficient and wrong type of treatment by the opposite party, the complainant issued a noticed dt. 20.7.07 demanding the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, but did not any reply in detail.    The complainant prays this Forum for directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the compensation and damages for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony sustained by the complainant and to repay a sum of Rs.15,500/- paid by her towards the surgical fees and expenses and Rs.10000/- being the costs of this proceedings.

3.         The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is  as follows:

            The opposite party denies all the allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   As per the scan report given by Sri Anand Ultra Sound Scan Centre, Vellore the complainant has a pelvic mass on the right side of the uterus and retro uterine region and the report also indicates the mass is capsulated and the location of the mass is clearly given and the contents of the mass is also indicated as fluid debris and solid substance i.e indicating the mass contains pus is hereby admitted.  As per the report sent by the Sri Anand Ultra Sound Scan Centre, Vellore dt. 6.6.05 the type of mass is uncertain and they not given accurate diagnosis and it is only a probable, differentiated diagnosis i.e. the type of mass is probably.

            1) LOCULATED PELVIC ABSCESS OR

            2) DERMOID OR

            3) ISCHIORECTAL ABSCESS OR

            4) INFECTED HYDATID CYST and the report also advised the complainant to take CT scan.   The allegations made in para-2 is also hereby denied.  The Bhuvana Surgical Hospital was not run by the opposite party.  The opposite party is only a part time consultant of the above said hospital.  It is not true that the opposite party was advised for an immediate surgery.  The opposite partly explained all the risks involved in the surgery and complicated nature of the case and possibility of changing the procedure after opening the abdomen that to was only after checking the primary cause for the pelvic / pelvirectal mass.  After explaining the entire things as aforesaid to the complainant and her husband only, the opposite party has received the consent from the complainant and her husband.  Since the pathology is pelvic/perlvirectal abscess, the intra abdominal causes were ruled out by mini laparotomy, since the complainant was presented with signs of acute abdomen and difficulty in passing urine and motion, guarding fullness of lower abdomen, fever the case was found to be an acute on chronic pathology due to severe infection and anatomical compression of the adjacent organs.   The pelvic / pelvirectal abscess occupies all the spaces in the right hemi pelvis and tends to spread to the other side by pushing the rectum, uterus, bladder to the left thereby bulges into the rectum peri anal region, vagina as evidenced in the ultra sonogram report and CT scan report attached by the complainant.  Since no intra abdominal pathology was detected abdomen was closed and drainage of the highly inflamed wall of the abscess cavity was done close to anal verge subcutaneously and 1 ½ liters of muddy, sero sanguinous, pultaceous material in the peri rectal region on the right side was drained.  After that Biopsy was taken from the wall of the abscess cavity to rule out Tuberculosis and empirical treatment for TB was started after the report.  The capsulated large cavity was washed with saline and a Foleys catheter was inserted and kept for few days and this only a palliative procedure.  The patient was admitted on 8.8.05 and she was operated on 11.8.05 and she was discharged on 28.8.05.  The allegations made in para-3 is totally denied.  The opposite party never neglected the complaints of the complainant and he never said the oozing of pus is permanent problem and she has to take medicine for life long.  The opposite party explained about the nature of the disease and requirement of staged surgical procedures for the complete cure of the patient. The allegations made in para 3 that the opposite party has neglected the complainant is hereby denied. The allegations made in para 4 of the complaint is totally false. The opposite party has no knowledge about the amount paid to the hospital by the complainant. Further the allegations made in para 4 of the complaint namely the opposite party ought not to have opened the abdomen is herby denied. Since the pathology is pelvic/pelvi rectal abscess, the intra abdominal causes were ruled out by mini laparotomy. Since the complainant was presented with signs of acute abdomen and difficulty in passing urine and motion, guarding, fullness of lower abdomen, fever, the opposite party has no other option except to open the abdomen to rule out primary intra abdominal causes Viz., 1. appendicitis, 2. salpingitis, 3. paracolic lesions, 4. and like others to save the life of the patient. The out come of such a  large pelvic/pelvi rectal abscess drainage by any means of drainage procedure mostly leads to fistula in ano and it requires staged procedures of surgery at a later stage even with competent hands. The fistula formed must be treated in staged procedures according to the text books. The incident of fistula in anus according to the sit of sepsis.

            1. Inschirectal  …………….. 25 %

            2. Peri anal ………………….34 %

            3. Intersphinteric …………….47%

            4. Supralevetar/Pelvi rectal …………… 42%

Sub Mucous/intermuscular ……… 15% according to surgery of anus, rectum and column Vol.I by Michael R.B. Keighley.  These are for uncomplicated simple abscess.  But the case of the complainant is a complicated one occupying all the spaces in the right hemipelvis displacing the rectum, bladder, uterus and bulging into the rectum, perianal region and vagina.  It certainly requires long time to collapse after drainage and usually form fistula in ano and requires staged surgeries.  The opposite party did the surgery after taking into consideration of the safety of the patient and the diseases requires staged surgeries for complete cure and reliving the patient from acuteness of signs and symptoms of pathology.  Formation of fistula is ano is a very common incident in this type of huge pelvic / pelvi rectal abscess after surgery.  The opposite party took utmost care to make the cavity collapse by cleaning the cavity and dressing after the surgery and whenever they came to the opposite party for follow up treatment.  

4.         The allegations made in para-5 of the complaint namely the complainant was examined by Dr. Srikumari Dhamodharan and problem could not be solved in view of the surgical negligence by the opposite party and she was advised by the doctors that the surgery should have been done by gastro enterologists even at the first instance to avoid formation of fistula and oozing of pus are false and the same is hereby strictly denied.   The opposite party never demanded any money much less than Rs.1,50,000/- as stated in the complaint.    The opposite party has given a detailed reply to the complainant advocate on 19.8.07 and the same was received by the complainant advocate.   The opposite party has taken all due care and the surgery was done with all the due care ness, after examining the complainant with all possible pre-surgical test and after getting opinion from the other qualified surgeons.   There is no negligence or wrong diagnosis or wrong treatment on the part of the opposite party.    Therefore the complainant is not at all entitled to allege any deficiency in service against the opposite party.  Hence this complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

5.         Now the points for consideration are:

            a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service, on 

                 the part of the opposite party?

            b)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the

                reliefs asked for?.   

6.         Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed.  No oral evidence let in by either side. 

7.         POINT No. a)

            The complainant contented that as per the Scan Report Ex.A1, the complainant had a Pelvic mass on the right side of the utrus and retro uterine region.   After examining the complainant, the opposite party instructed the complainant that immediate surgery is necessary to remove the mass, accordingly she had admitted on 8.8.05 at Bhuvana Surgical Hospital, Gudiyattam, the opposite party opened her abdomen by surgery and found that the mass is only of formation of hard pus cells.  Further, found  that the pus is to be drained only by rectal drainage system, he immediately closed the surgical opening of her abdomen and carried out rectal drainage.   After discharged from the hospital on 28.8.05 and after taking medicines for more than nine months, the oozing of pus through rectum did not stop but at the same time it was resulted in formation of fistula.   She approached the opposite party on several occasion and explained her difficulties, but the opposite party simply neglected the complainant and told her that oozing of pus is a permanent feature and she had to take medicine life long.  There after she took treatment from 7.7.06 to 17.7.06 at the Government Hospital, at Chennai.  Again, she was admitted on 25.5.07 in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Proctology, Government Hospital, Chennai and she underwent fistulectomy, and only then oozing of pus was stopped and the fistula was removed in all and she was discharged on 6.6.07.  After discharged from the Government Hospital, Chennai and after finding that the subsequent illness after the surgery at the opposite party’s hospital is only due to the inefficient and wrong type of treatment given by the opposite party.   Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8.         The opposite party contended that  after perusing the scan report Ex.A1, the complainant had a pelvic mass on the right side of the uterus and retro uterine region, and the report also indicates the mass is capsulated, and the contents of the mass is also indicated as fluid debris and solid substance i.e. indicating the mass contain, the opposite party explained all the risks involved in the surgery and complicated nature of the case and possibility of changing the procedure after opening the abdomen that to was only after checking the primary cause for the pelvic / pelvirectal mass.  Thereafter, the opposite party did the surgery after taking into consideration of the safety of the patient and the disease requires staged surgeries for complete cure and reliving the patient from acuteness of signs and symptoms of pathology.   The opposite party has taken all due care and the surgery was done with all the due care ness after examining the complainant with all possible pre-surgical test and after getting opinion from the other qualified surgeons.  It is further contended that formation of Firtula is ano is very common incident in this type of huge pelvic / Pelvi rectal abscess after surgery.  Therefore there is no negligence or wrong diagnosis or wrong treatment on the part of the opposite party.  

 9.        It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant was admitted on 8.8.05 at Bhuvana Surgical Hospital, Gudiyattam,  and  as per the Scan Report Ex.A1, dt. 6.6.05 given by Sri Anand Ultra Sound Scan Centre, Vellore the complainant had a Pelvic Mass on Right side of the Uterus & Retro Uterine Region and the report also indicates mass is capsulated and the contents of the mass indicated as fluid debris and solid substance i.e. indicating the mass contains pus.  After explaining the nature of the disease, and after received the consent letter Ex.B1 from the complainant’s husband, the opposite party opened her abdomen on 11.8.2005.  Since, no intra abdominal pathology was detected, abdomen was closed and drainage of the highly inflamed wall of the  abscess  cavity was done close to anal verge subcutaneously and 1 ½  litres of muddy, sero sanguinous, pultaceous material in the peri rectal region on the right side was drained.  She was discharged on 28.8.05.   Further, from the perusal of proof affidavit of the complainant and Medical Report Ex.A2 issued by the ESI Hospital, Vellore it is seen that  the complainant had developed pain in her abdomen and took treatment from 6.6.05 to 14.7.05 at ESI Hospital Vellore.   The doctor concerned directed the complainant to have a pelvic Scan, accordingly, she undergone scan at Sri Anand Ultra Sound Scan Centre.  As per the Scan Report Ex.A1, the complainant had a Pelvic mass on the right side of the uterus and retro uterine region.    The complainant was referred to Ayanavaram ESI, Hospital, but she approached the opposite party for further treatment on 8.8.05.    After perusing the Scan Report Ex.A1 and after examining the complainant, the opposite party opened her abdomen by surgery and found that the mass is only of formation of hard pus cells, and further, found that the pus is to be drained only by rectal drainage system, he immediately closed the surgical opening of her abdomen and carried out rectal drainage.   

10.       According to the complainant, after the surgery and after taking medicine for more than nine months, oozing of the pus through rectum did not stop for the surgery, but the same was resulted in formation of fistula.   The opposite party stated in his proof affidavit that as per the scan report Ex.A1 dt.6.6.05 the type of mass is uncertain and they have not given the accurate diagnosis and it is only a probable differential diagnosis.  Further, after surgery no intra abdominal pathology was detected, abdomen was closed and drainage of the highly inflamed wall of the abscess cavity was done close to anal verge subcutaneously and 1 ½ litres of muddy, sero sanguinous, pultaceous material in the peri rectal region on the right side was drained.  After that Biopsy was taken from the wall of the abscess cavity to rule out Tuberculosis and empirical treatment for TB was started after the report.  The capsulated large cavity was washed with saline and a Foleys catheter was inserted and kept for few days and this only a palliative procedure.  In the Scan report Ex.A1,  dt.6.6.05 issued by  Sri Anand Ultra Sound Scan Centre Vellore it is mentioned is as follows:

BOTH OVERS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED.

BLADDER     :  SIZE, SHAPE AND POSITION                : NORMAL

MEASUREMENTS : (THE MEASUREMENT ARE APPROXIMATE SIZES OF THE ORGANS STUDIED AND 

                                          VARIBLE)

UTERUS:

                        LONG AXIS                  :  71 MMS.

                        SHORT AXIS                :  45 MMS.

                        TRANSVERSE AXIS  :  43 MMS.

A careful perusal of Ex.A1 Scan Report dt. 6.6.05 it is seen that the type of mass is uncertain and the type of mass is probable 1. LOCULATED PELVIC ABSCESS OR 2. DERMOID OR 3. ISCHIORECTAL ABSCESS OR 4. INFECTED HYDATID CYST  and also advised the complainant to take the C.T. scan.  The learned counsel for opposite party would contend that it is difficult to distinguish before operation between a pelvirectal abscess and a large primary ischiorectal abscess.   The learned counsel has also referred the book of the surgery of the Anus, Rectum and Colon by John Goligher  (Ex.B4) page No.171.  In the said book page No.171 states as follows: -

PELVIRECTAL ASSCESS

DIAGNOSIS

        “ In the great majority of cases of anorectal abscess the diagnosis is very obvious, but sometimes the clinical  destination between types of abscess is not go easy especially in late cases when the suppurative process has spread and the features of more than one classic type may be present.  Thus it may be difficult to distinguish before operation between a pelvirectal abscess with a downward extension into the ischiorectal fossa, and a large primary ischiorectal abscess.  At operation, however, in the former case an opening will be found in the corresponding levator ani muscle connecting the supralevator abscess with its ischiorectal prolongation.  “

The Author of the above book has clearly stated that it may be difficult to distinguish before operation between a pelvirectal abscess with a downward extension into the ischiorectal fossa and a large primary ischiorectal abscess.   The complainant has also stated in her proof affidavit that the ESI Hospital authorities also informed her that she might have to undergo surgery or draining of pus.    The opposite party has stated in his proof affidavit that since the complainant was presented with signs of acute abdomen and difficulty in passing urine and motion, guarding, fullness of lower abdomen, fever, the case was found to be an acute on chronic pathology due to pelvic / pelvi-rectal abscess occupy all the spaces in the right hemi pelvis and tends to spread to the other side by pushing the rectum, uterus, bladder to the left, thereby bulges in the rectum, peri anal region, vagina as evidenced in the ultra sonogram report.   Based on the palliative procedure the opposite party after opened her abdomen by surgery and found that the mass is only of formation of hard pus cells.  Since no intra abdominal pathology was detected, abdomen was closed and drainage of highly inflamed wall of the abscess cavity was drained close to anal verge subcutaneously and 1 ½ litres of muddy sero sanguinous, pultaceous material in the perirectal region on the right side was drained.  Further, he stated that after the biopsy was taken from the wall of the abscess cavity to rule out tuberculoses and empirical treatment for T.B. was started after the report.   The capsulated large cavity was washed with saline and foleys catheter was inserted.  

11.       The opposite party contended that the formation of fistula in ano is very common incident in this type of huge pelvic / pelvi rectal abscess after surgery the out come of such large pelvic / pelvi rectal abscess drainage by any means of drainage procedure mostly leads to fistula in ano and it requires staged procedure of surgery at a later stage even with competent hands.  The fistula formed must be treated in staged procedures according to the text books.  The incident of fistula in anus according to the sit of sepsis.

            1. Inschirectal             25%

            2. Peri and                 34%

            3. Intersphinteric        47%

            4. Supralevetar / Pelvi rectal            42%

Sub Muscous / intermuscular ……..15% according to surgery of anus, rectum and column Vol.I by Michael R.B. Keighley.  These are for uncomplicated simple abscess.  But the case of the complainant is a complicated one occupying all the spaces in the right hemipelvis displacing the rectum, bladder, uterus and bulging into the rectum, perianal region and vagina.  It certainly requires long time to collapse after drainage and usually form fistula in ano and requires staged surgeries.     The complainant has not denied the above medical opinion about the formation of fistula.  Further, from the perusal of proof affidavit of the opposite party it is seen that the opposite party Dr. V.D. Thirugnanam, a surgeon of having 20 years of experience in surgery.    After perusing the scan report Ex.A1, based on the palliative procedure the surgery was performed on 11.7.05 by the opposite party. 

12.          The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that bare allegations in the complaint would not establish charge of negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The burden of proof on the medical negligence lies on the complainant but in this case, the complainant has not proved the allegation made in the complaint against the opposite party through medical records or expert evidence.   In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party is relying upon the following Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

I.                                              (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 130

C.P. SREEKUMAR (DR.), MS (ORTHO)

..Vs..

S.RAMANUJAM

Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court is held that

                        “ As already observed in Jacob Mathew case the onus to prove

  medical negligence lies largely on the claimant and that this onus

  can be  discharged by leading cogent evidence.  A mere averment

  in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch

  of imagination, be  said to be evidence by which the case of the

  complainant can be said  to be proved.  It is the obligation of the

  complainant to provide the  facta   probanda as well as the facta

  probantia.  

In Jacob Mathew case it has been observed as under:

 (SCC pp.32-33, para-48)

                                     “(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by

                            omission to do something which a reasonable man guided

                            by those considerations which ordinarily  regulate the conduct

                            of human affairs would do, or doing something which  a prudent

                            and reasonable man would not do.  The definition of negligence

                            as  given in Law of Torts, Ratantal 7 Dhirajlal (edited by

                            Justice G.P.Singh),   referred to hereinabove, holds good. 

                            Negligence becomes actionable on  account of injury resulting

                            from the act or omission amounting to negligence   attributable

                            to the person sued.  The essential components of negligence

                            are three: ‘duty’ , ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’

                                              (2) Negligence in the context of the medical profession

                                    necessarily     calls   for a treatment with a difference.  To infer

rashness or    negligence on  the part of a professional, in

particular a doctor, additional considerations  apply.  A case of

occupational negligence is different from one of professional

                                    negligence.  A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an

accident, is   not proof of negligence on the par of a medical

professional.

II.                                                     2007 (2) CPR 260 (NC)

                                                            N. Krishna Reddy

                                                                        ..Vs..

                                       Christian Medical College and Hospital

                                      Rep. by its Medical Superintendent & Anr.

Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi is held that,

                                    “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(a)(i) –

                                       and 2 (1) (g) – Complaints about medical negligence –

                                       Medical negligence must be established and not

                                       presumed.    In the absence of expert evidence on          

                                       behalf of the complainant, no negligence or

                                      deficiency in service could be found against the

                                      affidavits filed by Hospital and doctors. “ 

In the present case, from the perusal of Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7  medical records issued by the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Proctology, Government Hospital, Chennai it is seen that  after discharged from the Bhuvana Surgical Hospital, Guidyattam on 28.8.05 she took treatment from 7.7.06 to 17.7.07 and again she took treatment from 18.5.07 to 6.6.07.   Further the doctors who given the treatment to the complainant have not given any adverse remark on the above surgery or treatment done by the opposite party from 8.8.05 to 28.8.05 at the Bhuvana Surgical Hospital, Gudiyattam.     Therefore it is clear that, except the complaint there is no medical records, expert evidence to prove that the opposite party done a wrong treatment or committed deficiency in service while treating the complainant at Bhuvana Hospital, Gudiyattam.  The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.  

13.       Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A11 & Ex,.B1 to Ex.B5,  we have come to the conclusion that the complainants herein have not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein.  Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainants herein.

14.       POINT NO : (b)

            In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein.   We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint.  Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein.

15.                   In the result this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.             

Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the  12^th day of December  2011.   

MEMBER-II                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT.

List of Documents:

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Ex.A1- 6.6.05            - X-copy of the Scan report.

Ex.A2- 14.7.05          - X-copy of the report by ESI Hospital, Vellore.

Ex.A3-            --          - X-copy of the letter by the opposite party.

Ex.A4-            --          - X-copy of the letter by the opposite party.

Ex.A5-  7.7.06           - X-copy of the admission book by Govt. Hospital, Chennai.

Ex.A6- 18.5.07          - x-Copy of the admission book by Govt. Hospital, Chennai.

Ex.A7- 25.5.07          - X-copy of the admission book by Govt. Hospital, Chennai.

Ex.A8- 20.7.07          -X-copy of the Prescription slips issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A9- 30.6.06          - X-copy of the CT scan report issued by Govt. Hospital, Chennai.

Ex.A10- 20.7.07       - X-copy  of the Notice issued by the complainant’s Advocate.

Ex.A11- 23.7.07       - X-copy of the reply letter.

Opposite party’s  Exhibits:

Ex.B1- 11.8.05         - X-copy of the letter given by the complainant’s husband.

Ex.B2-            --          - X-copy of the surgery of the Anus, Rectum  and colon.

Ex.B3-            --          - X-copy of the Farquharson’s textbook of operative general

                                   Surgery.

Ex.B4-            --          - X-copy of the surgery of the Anus, Rectum and colon.

Ex.B5- 15.8.07         - X-copy of the reply notice.

MEMBER-II                                                                                                               PRESIDENT.