IN THE CONSUMER DISUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANATHITTADated this the 28th day of May, 2010.Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) O.P. No. 48/03 (Filed on 25.02.2003)Between: R. Sulekha, Chenathu Mannil House, Angadickal North Muri, Angadickal Village. (By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) .... Complainant. And: 1. Dr. Baby Jacob, Ortho Specialist, Thiruvalla Medical Mission, Thiruvalla. 2. Brigadier T. Varghese, Administrator, Thiruvalla Medical Mission, Thiruvalla. (By Adv. G.M. Idiculla for Opps. 1 & 2) 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Doctor’s Tower, Changanassery. (By Adv. D. Asokakumar) .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that she had sustained an injury on her left foot due to a fall at her house on 23.11.2002 at 3-00 p.m. Consequent to the severe pain, she went to the second opposite party hospital and consulted the first opposite party. The first opposite party examined the complainant and advised to take an X-ray and after taking the X-ray, plaster was applied on her foot and she was sent back. The plaster was put by an attendant of the hospital. After 4 days, severe pain and swelling developed. So she was taken to the local doctor who had given an injection for reducing her pain and he advised her for better management. Immediately, the complainant was taken to the Holly Cross Hospital, Adoor and she was admitted there on 27.11.2002. On examination of the complainant, the complainant’s ailment was diagnosed as post Traumatic Isocheimal Neurotic Ulcer Left. It was so happened due to the negligence of the opposite parties. It is a clear deficiency of service, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for their deficiency. Hence this complaint for realising a total amount of Rs.20,05,000/- under various heads like compensation, cost etc. from the opposite parties. 3. The first and second opposite parties filed version with the following contentions: The first and second opposite parties admitted that the first opposite party had seen the complainant on 23.11.2002 following a fall. After examination, the complainant was asked for taking X-rays of foot and ankle for assessing any bony or joint injuries and X-rays were taken. On examination of the X-rays, there was no obvious bony injury and diagnosed the condition as contusion of left foot medial aspect. As treatment, the first opposite party had advised for a below knee plaster slab (which is equivalent to a splint/support covering only half the circumference of leg and foot and is bandaged to leg with loose gauze bandage). The plaster slab splint was applied by the first opposite party with the help of an attendant. The slab was in good position and reasonably loose to allow for adequate circulation. The splint was advised to her for giving rest to the injured foot and to make her recovery from injury faster. She was advised to keep the leg elevated over 2 pillows in bed with moving the toes within plaster. She was also given a card explaining the patient about limb care in plaster slab. She was also instructed to report back at any time if there is pain or any other complaints or come after one week for a routine check up of splinted limb. Medicines for reducing the swelling were also given to her. This was keeping in mind about the possibilities of superficial skin death (necrosis) and deeper infection, which can happen, in any contused injury with swelling. But the patient had not returned to the opposite parties’ hospital though the pain was increased inspite of their advices. 4. The diagnosis made in Holy Cross Hospital is post traumatic isocheimal necrotic ulcer which shows that the traumatic contusion of foot that has lead to the necrosis of skin and deeper tissues. This is primarily attribute to the initial injury itself. The plaster splintage given by the opposite parties is the ideal treatment for contused injuries nearer to joints as this helps in reducing the swelling and pain leading to better and early healing. This treatment is followed in all reputed orthopaedic hospitals. The plastering was done by the first opposite party with the help of the attendant who had 17 years working experience in orthopaedic plastering. The patient and her relatives has not followed the opposite parties instructions like report back at any time if there is pain or any other complaints and keeping the leg elevated over 2 pillows. The opposite parties had not completed their treatment to the complainant and the complainant had neglected the opposite parties advice. The first and second opposite parties are not responsible to the complainant as she had not reported back and availed treatment elsewhere. The treatment given by the opposite parties is the ideal treatment for her injury. These opposite parties had given utmost care in giving the best possible treatment and there is no deficiency of service from their part. Moreover, the opposite parties are insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Changanassery. With the above contentions, the first and second opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any negligence or deficiency of service in the treatment given to the complainant. 5. The additional third opposite party filed a version with the following contentions: They have admitted the policy in favour of the second opposite party. The policy holder does not reported the treatment of the complainant and other relevant records of the aforesaid claim to the third opposite party for verification. As such the third opposite party is not liable to indemnify the second opposite party for the claim of the complainant. That apart, from the complaint itself it is clear that the complainant was treated by a local doctor and the complainant’s complications are from the said treatment and the additional third opposite party had no contract between that doctor and hence this opposite party is not a necessary party to this complaint. The complainant is not entitled to realise any amount as compensation from the opposite parties. With the above contentions, the additional third opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost, as there is no deficiency of service from their part. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the above complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PWs.1 to 3 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 8. Points 1 to 3: The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that the treatment given by the first opposite party at the second opposite party’s hospital on 23.11.2002 in connection with the injuries sustained to the complainant’s left foot due to a fall was negligent which caused post traumatic isocheimal necrotic ulcer and thereby the complainant was compelled to undergo long treatment at Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor. As a result of this, the complainant had sustained mental agony and financial loss and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the negligent treatment and deficiency of service committed by the second opposite party. It is also alleged that the plaster applied to the complainant’s foot was done by an attendant of the second opposite party’s hospital. The complications to the complainant was due to the negligent and improper treatment of the first opposite party and due to the improper application of the plaster by an attendant of the second opposite party’s hospital. 9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating her case along with certain documents. The complainant was examined as PW1 based on her proof affidavit and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. 2 doctors were also examined from the side of the complainant as PWs.2 and 3 and Ext.A8 is marked through PW3. Exts.A1, A2 and A6 series are the medical bills in connection with the treatment of the complainant at Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor. Ext.A3 is the discharge card dated 21.12.2003 issued by Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor in connection with treatment of the complainant from 27.11.2002 to 21.12.2002. Ext.A4 is another discharge card dated 18.02.2003 issued from Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor in connection with the treatment of the complainant from 03.02.2003 to 18.02.2003. Ext.A5 is the pharmacy sheet of Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor in respect of the treatment of the complainant from 03.02.2003 to 16.02.2003. Ext.A7 series are the trip sheets (11 in number) of vehicle No.KL03.C-1840 showing the taxi charges spent by the complainant in connection with the journey for the treatment. Ext.A8 is the treatment record (patient record file) in respect of the treatment of the complainant at Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor. 10. Opposite parties’ contention is that they have given proper treatment to the complainant as per medical ethics. She was treated as outpatient and she had given proper advices to be followed at her house and also she had given advice for further consultation with the opposite parties, if she feels any discomfort, pain or swelling in the injured portion. But she had not returned to their hospital so far and as per the complaint it is understood that she had obtained treatment elsewhere. So the opposite parties are unaware of the alleged further complications of the complainant and the complainants’ treatment was not completed. With the above contentions opposite parties argued that they are not responsible for the alleged further complications and they have not committed any deficiency of service. 11. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, the Orthopaedic Surgeon of the second opposite party hospital was examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 marked. Ext.B1 is a treatment record in respect of the complainant’s treatment on 23.11.2002 as outpatient at the opposite parties’ hospital. 12. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. On a perusal of the materials, it is seen that there is no dispute regarding the treatment of the complainant at the opposite parties’ hospital. The only dispute is that the treatment given to the complainant by the first opposite party was negligent which resulted complications to the leg and the complainant was compelled to undergo further treatment for a long period. But none of the exhibits marked in evidence or the deposition of PW3, an expert, does not discloses any negligence or any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. The relevant portion of the deposition in chief examination of PW3 is as follows:- “ ....................... CXv F´psImp kw`hn¨p F¶p ]dbm³ IgnbnÃ. t\cs¯ NnIn¨ Bip]{Xnbnse negligence BtWm F¶p ]dbm³ ]IbnÔ. The above deposition of PW3 is based on Ext.A8 treatment records. The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is general in nature. She had no case for any specific negligence. Moreover, the complainant had no case that the treatment warranted for the complainant’s injury was such and such and the treatment given by the first opposite party is not the required treatment for the complainant’s injury or there is no allegation that the first opposite party is not having any qualification, skill or experience for a treatment in the circumstances. Mere allegation of negligence in a treatment without any cogent evidence like expert opinion does not constitute negligence or deficiency in service. In the circumstances, we could not charge negligence or deficiency in service on opposite parties. There is no evidence to show that the complications developed on the injury of the complainant is due to the negligence of the first opposite party and are the consequences of the alleged negligent treatment of the first opposite party. Therefore, this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of May, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Sulekha. R. PW2 : Dr. K. Soman. PW3 : Dr. George Clarence. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : } A1(a) : } Cash bills issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. A1(b) : } A2 (Series): Cash bills (49 in number) issued by Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor to the complainant. A3 : Discharge card dated 21.12.2002 issued by Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor. A4 : Discharge card dated 18.02.2003 issued by Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor. A5 : Pharmacy sheet. A6 to A6(k) Cash bills (12 in number) issued by Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor to the complainant. A7 series: Trip sheets (11 in number). A8 : Patient record file of Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Dr. Santhosh Mathew. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Out patient record of Thiruvalla Medical Mission. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) R. Sulekha, Chenathu Mannil House, Angadickal North Muri, Angadickal Village. (2) Dr. Baby Jacob, Ortho Specialist, Thiruvalla Medical Mission, Thiruvalla. (3) Brigadier T. Varghese, Administrator, Thiruvalla Medical Mission, Thiruvalla. (4) Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Doctor’s Tower, Changanassery. (5) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
