Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/211/2017

V.Jeevanantham - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.D.Ranjith Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Dr.B.Cheran

24 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                   PRESIDENT

                   Tmt. Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                     MEMBER

 

CC.NO. 211/2017

 DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

V. Jeevanantham

S/o. P. Veeraragavan

No.20/27, Ellaya Mudali Street Lane

Saamiyar Thottam, Old Washermanpet

Chennai – 600 021

 

Also at

No.5, Flowers Road, 3^rd Street

Purasaiwalkam, Chennai – 600 007                                        ....Complainant

 

                                                  Vs.

 

Dr. D. Ranjith Kumar, M.B.B.S., DCH.,

Sri Misri Clinic

Shanti Swaroop Buildings

No.10, 1^st Floor, Vallalar Street

Purasaiwalkam, Chennai – 600 084                                       ....Opposite party

 

Counsel for complainant                               :   M/s L.K. Sudhirgha Banu

Counsel for Opposite party                            :   M/s. Dr. B. Cheran

 

                This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 25.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments of counsel appearing on bothsides, and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following order:

ORDER

Justice R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.       This complaint has been filed under Sec.17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards  medical negligence, Rs.2,00000/- towards compensation for mental agony, and Rs.14,00,000/- for medical expenses  alongwith cost of Rs.25,000/-.

 

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

          The complainant is a Gym Trainer and owns a fitness centre at Choolai.  He has only one daughter christened as J. Lakshanaa, aged about 9 years.  She was studying in 3^rd standard at CSI Baynes Memorial High Secondary School at Kilpauk.  The child is a physically fit person free from disabilities.    On 24.3.2027 after getting an appointment from the opposite party he took his child to opposite party’s clinic for consultation as the child was running temperature.  The opposite party had allotted her a reference number in CLI/0474818.  When the complainant met the opposite party in his clinic, with the child, the complainant disclosed all the difficulties which the child was undergoing, thereafter the opposite party had clinically examined the child and prescribe medicines viz. Tab.Vomsavi MD -4mg.,  Tab. Dolo 650,  Tab.Pan-20 Mg.,  Syp.Asthakind DX  and Syrp. Azibact 200 mg.  Albeit the medicines were administered, the child did not recover instead the fever aggravated and was vomiting more vigorously than earlier.  Therefore, again on 26.3.2017 the complainant had brought the child to the opposite party for further consultation.  Again the opposite party prescribed medicines viz. Syrp. Azibact,  Tab.Pan,  Syrp.Pyrigesic D.S., and  Syrp.Athakind.  Relying upon the opposite party’s instructions, the complainant was earnestly administering the aforementioned medicines to the child, but the child did not respond at all and the ailment was further aggravating.  On 27.3.3017 evening the child become very critical and was not even able to open her eyes.  Being afraid of the child’s condition, the complainant had immediately rushed her to the opposite party’s clinic, where the opposite party had neither administered any medicines nor examined the child, but referred the child to Dr.Ganesh at Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Child Trust Hospital, Nungambakkam, Chennai for treatment.  The opposite party is a consultant doctor at the aforesaid hospital.  Only after consulting the doctors at Child Trust Hospital, the complainant came to know that his child was affected by Steven Johnson Syndrome.  As per the version of the consulting doctors the complainant came to know that the child was affected by the aforesaid syndrome only due to the heavy dosage of medicines prescribed by the opposite party from 24.3.2017 to 26.3.2017.  The child was admitted as an inpatient at the aforesaid hospital from 27.3.2017 to 17.4.2017.  During the course of treatment at the aforesaid hospital, the complainant had incurred a heavy expenditure to the tune of about eleven lakhs apart from mental agony and physical pain, which cannot be monetarily valued.  The monetary loss and the mental agony could have been averted if the opposite party would have given proper medicines by diagnosing the disease expeditiously in a prudent and diligent manner.  The tablet Dolo 650 is being banned by the Ministry of India. The complainant had to incur a heavy expenditure by mobilising funds from various sources at a heavy rate of interest and by pledging the jewels, to save the child.   Due to the aforementioned syndrome the child was affected with dry eyes, roughness in upper eye lids for which the child had undergone a surgery.  Therefore, the complainant had caused legal notice to the opposite party on 12.5.2017 urging the opposite party to apologize, compensate and to pay the expenses incurred by the complainant for the treatment of his child, for which the opposite party had given vague and vexatious reply on 19.5.2017.  Hence he filed this complaint praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards medical negligence, Rs.2 lakhs towards physical strain and mental agony and a sum of Rs.14 lakhs for medical expenses alongwith cost of Rs.25000/-. 

3.       Resisting the claim of the complainant, opposite party had filed their version stating as follows:

           There is no breach of duty or negligence on his part.   The opposite party had exercised good care and professional skill while attending the patient.  The complainant had misrepresented the true facts deliberately and had concealed evidence and documents.  The facts with regard to the treatment had been completely twisted to suit his needs by the complainant.  The complainant brought his child aged about 9 years weighing around 22.6 Kg. to the opposite party clinic on 24.3.2017, morning with complaints of fever, cough, vomiting and pain in the abdomen of one day duration.  The complainant did not give the history of allergy to any drugs when asked for.  After examining her in detail, according to her weight, the opposite party had prescribed her some medicines as stated in paragraph 6 of the version.  Again the complainant brought his daughter on 26.3.2017 for fever and vomiting not regressing and the opposite party had examined her in detail. She was in good hydration, vitals- stable, sensorium  normal, head to foot examination normal, urine output good, hence the opposite party advised the complainant to continue the same medicine.  Instead of tablet Dolo 650 (half tablet) the opposite party changed to syrup Pyrigesic DS.  The opposite party had written few blood tests on his prescription alongwith his cell phone number and had instructed to call in case of any emergency.  Again on 27.3.2017 morning, the complainant brought the child as the child was not able to open the eyes due to swelling of eye lids, and the child had mild skin rashes over the chest and back.  As the child didn’t require any emergency intervention in clinic at that time and as the child was hemodynamically stable, he referred the child to Dr.Ganesh of Child Trust Hospital for expert opinion with reference letter.  At the time of admission her vitals are:  Heart Rate: 100/min ;  Respiratory: 30/min ;  BP: 97/55 ;  Hydration : well hydrated ;  SPO2: 98% in room air ;  Temperature : 98^oF ;  .   In the Child Trust Hospital, following skin and eye doctor’s opinion, the child was diagnosed as suffering from Steven Johnsons Syndrome.  All her vital parameters at the time of admission in the hospital were normal and the child was kept in normal ward for 18 hours.  It is to be remembered that Steven Johnson Syndrome is an unpredictable response to drugs/ infection/ idiopathic (cause not known)/ genetic factors etc.,  The opposite party did not prescribe syrup Azibact twice in his prescription as alleged.  When the fever did not subside with medicines prescribed on 24.3.2017, the opposite party suggested few investigations on 26.3.2017 to find out the cause of fever.  The allegation of the complainant that he had not advised any blood test is false.  In fact the opposite party had given even his personal cellphone number to contact him to inform the reports as early as possible as evidenced by page 4 of the typeset filed by the complainant.  It is not true that the child became serious on 27.3.2017 evening and was rushed to opposite party clinic.  In fact the child was brought to the opposite party clinic on 27.3.2017 morning and was admitted into the Child Trust Hospital on 27.3.2017 at 1.40 pm itself.  The opposite party is not a consultant doctor at Child Trust Hospital as alleged.  It is also false to say that the child was admitted in ICU in emergency condition.  The treatment was started in normal ward only and on day two only she was shifted to pediatric ICU.  All the medicines that he had prescribed to her are based upon her weight (22.6 Kg).  The complainant had failed to file proof that he had consulted various medical practitioners and all of them had confirmed that the opposite had prescribed heavy dosage.  Similarly the complainant did not incur heavy monetary loss as stated in the complaint.  Thus he prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.       In order to prove their case both parties have filed their respective proof affidavits, and documents filed in support of the claim by the complainant are marked as Ex.A1 to A5.  There was no document filed by the opposite party. 

 

5.       The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the child was brought to the opposite party for treatment, since the child had fever, cough, vomiting and abdominal pain.  The opposite party had prescribed medicines on 24.3.2017 viz. Tab.Vomsavi MD -4mg.,  Tab. Dolo 650,  Tab.Pan-20 Mg.,  Syp.Asthakind DX  and Syrp. Azibact 200 mg. Though he was giving treatment to the child from 24.3.2017 to 26.3.2017 the fever and other ailments did not subside.  Hence he has referred the child to the Child Trust Hospital.  At the Child Trust Hospital it was diagnosed that the child was suffering from Steven Johnson syndrome.  Therefore, the treatment for the period from 24.3.2017 to 26.3.2017 was a crucial period.  The Steven Johnson syndrome is a disease caused only due to adverse reaction of medicines, which cannot be denied by the opposite party, since until the day she was diagnosed as suffering from Steven Johnson Syndrome, she was following the medication prescribed by the opposite party.  Those medicines were immediately stopped by the Child Trust Hospital.  The complainant had spent heavy amount for the treatment of the child.  But the entire episode is only due to the negligence of the doctor.  Thus he prayed for compensation for the deficiency committed by the opposite party.

6.       Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the opposite party  submitted that the Steven Johnson Syndrome is unpredictable response to drugs/ infection/ idiopathic (cause not known/ genetic factors etc.  The onerus duty cast upon the complainant to prove that the Steven Johnson Syndrome had resulted because of the negligence of the opposite party.  The hospital had diagnosed the disease only as Steven Johnson Syndrome.  If it had resulted because of the drugs prescribed by the opposite party, then the diagnosis would have been “drug induced Steven Johnson Syndrome”.  Moreover, the child had taken treatment from the opposite party from 23.3.2017 to 26.3.2017, all these days she was normal and only on 27.3.2017 she developed some rashes, and swelling in the eyes.  Immediately, the opposite party had referred her to the Child Trust Hospital.   The cause for Steven Johnson Syndrome had not been established.  There had been no investigations carried out to prove the same.  The burden of proof lies heavily on the complainant.  No doctor on earth could find out as to who is allergic to what.  In such circumstances, merely for the purpose of compensation, allegations should not be made against the opposite party.  Thus he sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

7.  Based on the submissions made by both parties and on perusal of the documents, the only point raised to decide the complaint is

          1.       Whether the reason for the Steven Johnson Syndrome caused to the complainant’s child was due to the medicines prescribed by the opposite party?

 

 

 

 

8.       POINT:

          It is the main allegation of the complainant that his daughter had developed Steven Johnson Syndrome only on account of the medicines prescribed by the opposite party.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to see that what were the medicines prescribed by the opposite party, when the complainant’s daughter had come with cough and fever.  

As seen from Ex.A1 dt.24.3.2017 the medicines viz. Tab.Vomsavi MD -4mg.,  Tab. Dolo 650,  Tab.Pan-20 Mg.,  Syp.Asthakind DX  and Syrp. Azibact 200 mg. Were prescribed

          As seen from Ex.A2 dt.26.3.2017 the medicines viz. Syrp. Azibact,  Tab.Pan,  Syrp.Pyrigesic D.S., and  Syrp.Athakind. were prescribed. 

          The medicines prescribed as above are all approved by the Drugs Controller of India.   It is also submitted that the opposite party/ doctor had enquired the complainant whether the child is allergic to any kind of medicine.  Since the complainant replied ‘No’, the above medicines have been prescribed by the doctor.  In fact when the fever did not subside after two days, the opposite party had advised the complainant to take some tests.  Since there was deterioration in the health of the child who developed rashes over the body and swelling in the eyes, the opposite party correctly advised the complainant to approach the Child Trust Hospital, on the suspicion of complication. 

          It is also pertinent to note here that the doctors are not Gods to predict all the further happenings.  They could treat the patients only on the basis of the symptoms reported to them.  When the child was first brought with a complaint of fever, cough and vomiting, any doctor cannot suggest for hospitalisation.  He could only prescribe the medicines for recovery.  Since ordinary flu, etc., also would have the same symptoms initially.  The complainant also had not produced any material or produced any expert opinion that the disease had been caused only due to the consuming of medicines prescribed by the opposite party.   As per the diagnosis from the Discharge summary it is mentioned as “Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis / Invasive Fungal Sepsis”.  No where it has been mentioned that it is a drug induced Steven Johnson Syndrome.   

          As was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party, there were so many other reasons including genetical reason for causing Steven Johnson Syndrome.  Therefore, without any proof of evidence, it cannot be accepted that the cause for the disease was only due to the medicines prescribed by the opposite party.  It is also pertinent to note here that there is no particular medicine to treat the said disease.  It is submitted that only based upon the complications the treatment will be proceeded and it will take a long period to subside from the complications of the disease. 

          In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion, that the opposite party had at the right point of time referred the patient to the higher management, which saved the child from the worst happening. As seen from the records it is seen that the doctor had also advised for some tests and also had given his personal number to the complainant to update him about the results of the tests.  Therefore, we find no negligence on the part of the opposite party in treating the complainant’s child.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Point is answered accordingly.

 

9.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed.    No cost.

         

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                 R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

Exhibits filed on the side of complainant

A1      24.03.2017

       To 27.03.2017  Prescription slip issued by opposite party

A2      22.04.2017    Discharge Summary

A3             “           Summary bill issued by the Child Trust Hospital

A4      12.05.2017    Legal notice by complainant

A5      19.05.2017    Reply notice by OP     

 

Exhibits of the Opposite party:    Nill

     

 

 

 

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                               R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/d/rsj/ Orders