SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

    This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  for an order directing  the OP’s to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service, negligent to treating the complainant  on the part of OP’s.

The brief of the complaint :

   On 18/4/2016 the complainant went to 2^nd OP’s hospital and met 1^st OP for  pain and ear discharge.  The 1^st OP examined the complainant and  advised  Tympanoplasty surgery.  Then on 18/4/2016 with advise for  medication and rest he discharged on 20/4/2016.  The complainant consumed the medicine prescribed by the 1^st OP showed some issue so he consulted the doctor got an evasive reply.  Thereafter the symptoms aggravated a reddish colour appeared on his face and spread all over his body and  his skin  broken and he again went to 2^nd OP’s hospital and consult a dermatologist and diagnosed ertythorodeem secondary? Pityriases rosea? PRP intertrigo-B/L –Groin and he discharged on 22/6/2016.  The complainant alleges that the skin disease appeared due to drug allergy and he continued medication for  2 months.  Thereafter he met another doctor from Govt. Hospital,Kannur he was finally diagnose exploliative dermatics PRP pityriasis RUBR pilaris.  The complainant states that he was a weaver in profession and he lives only for earning the income from his job.  But due to the medical negligent on the part of 1^st OP the complainant lost his job and income.  The act of OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony and hardship.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Hence the complaint.

       After receiving  notice  both OP’s entered  before the commission  and filed their  written version .1^st OP contended that the complainant consult her with a history of recurrent ear discharge since 5 years which got aggravated during  winter season associated with complaint of hearing loss.  He had 41.6 dB moderate conducive hearing loss on right ear.  On diagnosis found to  have right side chronic suppurative otitis media and was advised right  tympanoplasty and explained the  pros and cons of the procedure.  Then the complainant admitted the 2^nd OP’s hospital on 17/4/2016 and  underwent  necessary pre-anesthetic checkup and evaluation  and found fit for surgery.  Thereafter the surgery complainant discharged on 20//4/2016 with medicines and advised review in ENT outpatient department after 5 days.  On the follow up review the graft was found to be intact and found  to be taken up during  subsequent follow up.  Thereafter 2 months later the surgery done by 1^st OP the complainant had undergone Dermatology treatment in 2^nd OP’s hospital.  As per the diagnosis of the Dermatologist he had been  suffering from dermatitis caused  due to  factors unrelated to previous ENT treatment.  The diagnosed skin disease of the complainant was in no way related to his ear disease or its treatment.  The 1^st OP advised tympanoplasty for the diagnosed disease condition of the complainant and done the procedure with  reasonable  skill and care and prescribed medicines as per standard and accepted treatment protocol.  The averments regarding modality of treatment of the complainant at various hospitals are not pertaining to the knowledge of 1^st OP.  The complaint is filed by the complainant by misrepresenting facts and extracts money from 1^st OP without any cause of action against the 1^st OP. So the 1^st OP is not liable to compensate the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the  part of 1^st  OP and the complaint may be dismissed.

   2^nd OP contended that at the time of filing the complaint the Medical college hospital was run by the Kerala State Co-operative Hospitals and centre for Advanced Medical Services Ltd No.4386 and the  society was represented by its Managing Director.  Since the  society is not  made as a party , the complaint is not legally sustainable.  The Medical Superintendent cannot be held liable for the acts of a doctor or any of the staff of the hospital  and  hence the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary party and non-joinder of  necessary party.  There is not even a murmur in the complaint attributing  any  negligence or deficiency of service on the part of  2^nd OP.    So there is no  deficiency in service against this 2^nd OP.  The complainant was admitted in the 2^nd OP hospital on 17/4/2016 in the ENT Department with complaint of CSOM- Mucosal- Inactive a  case of (R) chronic suppurative olitis media tubotympanic disease for his right ear surgery.  The complainant insisted that  his surgery  will be done  under local anaesthesia.  He was posted  for right tympanoplasty after investigations and  pre anaesthesia check up on 18/4/16. His  audiogram showed moderate conductive hearing loss(41.6d B) in (R) ear.  The 1^st OP did  a right tympanoplasty for him under local anaesthesia and intravenous sedation.  Inspite of the patient being apprehensive and  un co-operative  during  the procedure, the surgery was successfully completed.  He was discharged on 20/4/2016 and on subsequent follow up visit the  graft was found to be intact and taken up.  The alleged skin condition which he developed within 2 month of surgery is in no way related to the  medications prescribed  by the 1^st OP or due to the surgery done in the ear.   As per the dermatologist’s opinion the diagnosis of the skin condition is Erythroderma secondary seborrhoeic dermatitis.  It was totally unrelated to his ear disease or treatment provided for the same.  There is no deficiency in servie or unfair trade practice against the OP’s.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   Thereafter on 11/11/2021 the complainant filed a petition to implead the Principal,Govt. Medical College,Pariyaram ,Kannur as the necessary party in the above case and the petition allowed.  The Principal, Govt. Medical College Pariyaram is impleaded as additional 3^rd OP.  The 3^rd OP filed the version contending that the principal cannot be held liable for the acts of a doctor or any of the staff of the hospital and hence the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary party.  There was no negligence or defective service on the part of all OP’s and the complainant has not sustained any loss or damage because of  any latches on the part of this OP’s.  Hence the complaint is not sustainable and liable to be dismissed.

        On the basis  of the rival contentions by the pleadings the  following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts. A1 to A4 were marked .  On OP’s side 1^st OP was examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 marked.

Issue No.1 :   

     The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version. He was  cross examined as PW1 by 1^st OP.  He  relied upon Exts.A1 to  A4 documents to substantiate his case . In the evidence of PW1 he stated that” 1^st OP  തന്ന മരുന്ന് കഴിച്ചിട്ട് ത്വക്ക് രോഗം ഉണ്ടായി എന്നാണ്എന്ർറെ പരാതി . 1^st OP   എനിക്ക് 2 injection  തന്നിരുന്നു. അത് 2 ഉം തന്നത് operation ന് മുമ്പാണ്. Injection തന്നത് ഡ്രിപ് ആയിട്ടാണ്. ഈ 2 injection മരുന്നും  doctor പറഞ്ഞതു പ്രകാരം  എെൻറെ മകൻ വാങ്ങിച്ചുകൊടുത്തതാണ്.  എനിക്ക് എടുത്ത 2 injection കൊണ്ടാണ്  ത്വക്ക് രോഗം ഉണ്ടായത് .Injection ന് ഉപയോഗിച്ച മരുന്നിന്ർറെ  പേരറിയാമോ? അറിയില്ല. As per the pleadings the mastoid dressing was changed on 20/4/2016 and he was discharged on the same day with medicines and advised review in ENT outpatient department after 5 days.  But in evidence he changed his contention  that the  injection given during the operation has caused those issues.  He further deposed that  “ ഏകദേശം ഒരു മാസം കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടാണ് ത്വക്ക് രോഗത്തിനുവേണ്ടി doctor നെ കാണുന്നത്? ശരിയാണ്. As per  Ext.A1 document  which clearly shows that on 13/6/2016 he admitted to 2^nd OP hospital under the department of dermatology unit 2 and  discharged on 22/6/2016.  നിങ്ങളെ ചികിത്സിച്ച ത്വക്ക് രോഗ വിദഗ്ധനോട് എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഇങ്ങനെ സംഭവിച്ചതെന്ന്  ചോദിച്ചോ? ചോദിച്ചില്ല. കാരണം അവർക്ക് രോഗം മനസ്സിലായില്ല.  As per Ext.A2(series) 4 in No. also shows that he reviewed  the dermatology department upto 23/7/2016 under the 2^nd OP hospital.  Thereafter he consulted  Koyili Hospital doctor? അവിടുത്തെ   doctor നോട് എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഇങ്ങനെ സഭവിച്ചത് എന്ന്  ചോദിച്ചോ? ചോദിച്ചില്ല .  കൊയിലി ഹോസ്പിറ്റലിലെ  ചികിത്സയ്ക്കുശേഷം തലശ്ശേരിയിലെ Dr.സതി നമ്പ്യാരെ കണ്ടു. Dr.സതി നമ്പ്യാരോട് എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഇങ്ങനെ സഭവിച്ചത് എന്ന്  ചോദിച്ചോ? ചോദിച്ചില്ല. അതിനുശേഷം speciality hospital   ലെ Dr.Ashraf നെ കണ്ടു. Dr.Ashraf നോട് എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഇങ്ങനെ സഭവിച്ചത് എന്ന്  ചോദിച്ചോ? ചോദിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. As per Ext.A3 shows the date of  admission  on 3/9/2016 and date of discharge  on 8/9/2016. അതിനുശേഷം Kannur Govt. Hospital ലെ Skin Specialist Dr.Jyothi യെ കണ്ടു. എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഇങ്ങനെ സഭവിച്ചത് എന്ന്  ചോദിച്ചോ? ചോദിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. As per  Ext.A4 the date of admission  5/11/2016 and discharge on 9/11/16 .  OP.NO.1 തന്ന മരുന്ന് കൊണ്ടാണ് നിങ്ങൾക്ക് ത്വക്ക് രോഗം വന്നത് എന്ന്  നിങ്ങൾ ഊഹിച്ച് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയതാണ് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു? സ്വയം മനസ്സിലാക്കിയതാണ് .  എനിക്ക് മുന്നേ ഈ അസുഖം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. The evidence of the complainant that he assured the cause of  his illness without any substantial support, contending that the skin disease resulted from the side  effect of the medicine prescribed by 1^st OP.  The burden is on the  complainant to prove the allegations, ie, the 1^st OP prescribed such medicines that caused his skin disease, the medicines prescribed by 1^st OP that were unnecessary for his illness and the medicines prescribed by  1^st OP could have been avoided if 1^st OP had been vigilant.  Moreover on OP’s side 1^st OP was examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 marked the Discharge card with  summary.  But the complainant was not cross examined  DW1 before the commission and the chief examination is to be accepted as evidence .  So in order to prove the case of the complainant,  the complainant has to produce an expert witness.  But in this case the complainant has not examined an expert  in the field to prove his case also.

   On OP’s side the OP’s counsel submitted the Hon’ble Supreme Court citations 2022 O SUP(SC) 335. In Chandra Rani vs. Methusethupathi. “ No  doctor can give any assurance that his illness can be cured by medicine or surgery.  No doctors can give any such assurance, the doctors are expected to take reasonable care but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after over coming this crisis.

   The Hon’ble National Commission held that the absence of expert evidence no negligence or deficiency in service could be found against doctors.  2003(1)CPR(NC) 238-Kiran Bala Rout vs. Christian Medical College & Hospital.

   Commission cannot presume that the allegations in the complaint are inviolable truth eventhough they remained un supported by any evidence. R.Singh vs. Shabana(2022)3 CPR 82.Del.

   Negligent must be established and not presumed  III1999(P) 9(NC), 1999 CTJ 644(CP) (NCDRC)  Kanhiya Kumar Singh vs. Park Medicare & Research centre.  In this cse there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OP’s 1 to 3.  So the Issue No.1 found in favour of the OPs and answered accordingly.  

Issue No.2&3:

        As discussed above due to the aforesaid deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 to 3 are not proved by the complainant.  So the complainant is miserably failed to prove his case.   Thus issue No.2&3 are also  found  against the complainant.

  Hence the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the  complainant is not proved the deficiency in service , negligent in treating and unfair trade practice against opposite parties 1 to 3.  So the compensation and cost not  allowed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed.   No order as to cost.

Exts:

 A1- Discharge summary of Pariyaram Medical  college dtd.22/6/16

A2(series) Prescriptions 4 in Nos.  –do-

A3- Discharge summary  of Speciality hospital  dtd.8/9/16

A4- Discharge summary of  Govt. Hospital Kannur dtd.9/11/16

B1- Discharge  with summary

PW1-T.Chandran-complainant

DW1-Dr.Deepa.R- 1^st OP.

Sd/                                                              Sd/                                                 Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                                  

                                                                                                /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                                            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR