Date of filing : 11.10.2019
Date of order : 22.02.2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
WEDNESDAY THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 28/2019
Chandrababu,
S/o. Subramani,
Door No. 15,
Devarishikuppam Village,
Katpadi – 632 007,
Vellore District . ...Complainant
-Vs-
1. Doctor J.V. Petter,
Director,
C.M.C. Hospital,
Vellore – 632 004.
2. Doctor Prasath Methew,
Medical Superintendent,
C.M.C. Hospital,
Vellore – 632 004.
3. The Secretary,
Christian Medical College,
Vellore Association,
Doctor Ida Scudder Road,
Vellore – 632 004,
Vellore District. ...Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Tmt. R. Vanitha
Counsel for opposite parties : Thiru. M.R. Ramanan
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission, to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to this complaint.
1. The Case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant was admitted in the opposite party Hospital on 16.04.2017 emergency department with right side lower abdominal pain. After, clinical and physical examination, he was referred to surgical team and he was admitted as in patient on 17.04.2017. He was diagnosis of acute Appendicitis and posted for Laparoscopic and Appendectomy CT Scan also confirmed the same. He was under went Laparoscopic and Appendectomy on 17.04.2017, and he was discharged from the opposite party hospital on 20.04.2017. The allegation of the complainant is that, after the operations the opposite party left the complainant and attended. Therefore, there is no feeling in his left leg. Therefore, he felt that there was some mistake in the operations, when he was asked about the same with the Doctors of the opposite party. The opposite party assured that the same will be quired in due course, and discharged on 20.04.2017. But, the problem became aggravated and there was a swelling in the left leg, and there was no senses and could not fold or move his leg. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party on 30.04.2017 within 10 days from the date of discharge from the hospital. According to the complainant, the other department of the opposite party hospitals, doctors informed that the complainant was affected with left proximal provoked the same was happened due to the aforesaid operations done by the opposite party hospital for Appendicitis. As a result of the aforesaid DVT he has forced to take treatment for his future life. Further, he could not do his work properly his matrimonial life also affected. Further, he also alleged that he forced to take the following tablets 1. Tab. Warfarin 5mg once a day, 2. Tab. Paracetamol 1mg Thrice a day, 3. Tab. Tramadol 50mg, 4. Tab. Pantop 40mg one a day for his survival and further, he has also advised that he should not stand for long period and there are other prescription also the vascular department of opposite party advised, the reason for the aforesaid subsequent DVT only because of the negligence operation done by the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party liable to compensate the complainant. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice on 08.04.2019, on receipt of the notice the opposite party gave 2 line reply thereafter, they have not given any detailed reply. After waiting four months as there was no reply from the opposite party. The complainant approached this Hon’ble Commission by way filing this complaint.
2. The written version of opposite parties are briefly as follows:
The opposite party in their written version stating that it is true that the complainant admitted in the emergency department on 16.04.2017 and not on 17.04.2017 as stated in the complaint. The complainant after due clinical /physical examination, was referred to surgical team who admitted the complainant on 17.04.2017 with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis and posted for laparoscopic appendectomy. The complainant and clinical features of Appendicitis. The Alvarado Score (A score used to calculate the probability of acute appendicitis) calculated at the time of admission was high (8). This is documented in the patient’s in-patient record. It is submitted that in-patients with clinical features of acute uncomplicated appendicitis and a high Alvarado Score, routine use of CT Scan to confirm the diagnosis is not indicated/need not to be done. The complainant underwent laparoscopic appendectomy on 17.04.2017. As per the record, the patient did not complain of pain in the leg, post operatively, until the time of discharge on 20.04.2017. The diagnosis and treatment were done by expert Doctors. There was absolutely no negligence or deficiency of service. Subsequently the complainant developed pain in the left lower limb and came to Accident and Emergency Department on 30.04.2017. He was evaluated by the Vascular surgery team and he was admitted under their care with a diagnosis of Deep Venous Thrombosis-DVT (blood clot). It is submitted that DVT is a known complication after any operation and this had been explained to the patient at the time of consent for Surgery, documented in the consent form signed by the complainant. The complainant was received appropriate prophylaxis for the same. In spite of all precautions a few patients still develop DVT. Thus after he was diagnosed to have DVT, he was admitted on 05.05.2017 as in-patient by the Vascular Surgery team and managed as per their protocol for management of DVT. As can be seen from the second discharge summary, the patient was advised to continue therapeutic anticoagulation for 3 months. Out-patient records can also be seen. He was treated adequately with anticoagulation. He responded well to the treatment. He will not develop any permanent disability due to the DVT or its treatment. It is absolutely false to allege in the complaint that any doctor ever stated that wrong operation was done. Therefore, this complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
3. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed. Ex.B1 series marked. Written arguments of both sides filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard.
4. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
5. POINT NOS. 1 & 2: The complainant underwent Laparoscopic Appendectomy on 17.04.2017 at the opposite party hospital and he was discharged from the hospital on 20.04.2017. The main allegation of the complaint is that after the operation was done the opposite party left the complainant and attended therefore, his left leg affected with swelling no sensing and could not move. Therefore, he was admitted on 30.04.2017 in the opposite party Vascular department where he was diagnosed with DVT (Deep Venous Thrombosis). According to the complainant this happened due to the negligence operation done by the opposite party. As a result, he could not do to his regular work and there was some problem in the matrimonial life. Further, he also forced to take medicines and therapeutic anticoagulation treatment. Therefore, he has suffered with mental agony and financial burden.
6. On the other hand, the opposite party admitting that they have done Laparoscopic and Appendectomy on 17.04.2017. But, when the complainant discharged from the hospital on 20.04.2017. The complainant did not make any complaint of pain in the left leg. Further, he also stating that DVT is a known complications, whenever an operation was done. This was explained to the complainant prior to the operation was done, and they have also obtained the informed consent from the complainant. After obtained the necessary consent and explaining the consequences and complications only, this opposite party has done the operations. Therefore, there is no negligence in doing the operation on the part of the opposite party. They also stating that after, the complainant diagnosed with DVT, they have given proper treatment and proper medicines and he was also treated adequately with the anticoagulation. He responded well to the treatment. Further, there was no permanent disability due to the DVT or its treatment.
7. The only issue, to be decided in this case is that whether the opposite party has held liable for known complication, out of the aforesaid surgery. In this regard, we refer to the various judgements of the Our Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which says only the complainant is proved that, there is a negligence in treating or doing operations done, the opposite party has liable whereas the complainant did not allege that, the due to that there is any problem in the appendicitis operations. Whereas, the complainant claiming the totally different disease as if, which has happened due to the operation done by the opposite party. But, though the opposite party did not explain as to how the DVT developed due to the aforesaid operations. But, the opposite party categorically admitted that DVT is a known complications. But their defence is that this was explain to the complainant, prior to the operation was done. Therefore, they are not responsible for the known complications.
2016 (1) CPR p.182 (NC)
Sardar Kuldeep Sing
Vs.
Escords Heart Institute & Research Centre & another.
Held that,
Medical professional or entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in interest of patients. Interest and welfare of patients have to be paramount for medical professionals.
In the present case, also the complainant did not make any complaint, with regard to his Appendicitis operations. Therefore, there is no error in the aforesaid operations.
2019 (3) CPR 229 (NC)
P.A. Appasamy
Vs.
Manager, Vijaya Health Centre & Others.
Held that,
We, sympathize for the death of young person, but premia facia despite treating doctors best efforts the allegation of the medical negligence and filing a complaint is not view favourably.
Therefore, in our consider opinion, that there was no negligence or absence of the due care in treating the complainant. Since, the complainant did not make any allegation with regard to the Appendicitis operations. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed. Hence, these Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered as against the complainant.
8. POINT NO. 3:
As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Hence, this Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 22nd February,2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 - Copy of Hospital No. 557316G
Ex.A2-11.02.2019 - Copy of letter
Ex.A3-25.02.2019 - Discharge summary
Ex.A4-27.02.2019- Discharge summary
Ex.A5-08.04.2019 - Office copy of Lawyer Notice
Ex.A6-08.04.2019 – Copy of postal receipt
Ex.A7-09.04.2019 - Acknowledgement card
Ex.A8-09.05.2019 - Opposite party Letter
Ex.A9-08.02.2019 - Appointment slip
Ex.A10-01.11.2019- Appointment slip
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDES DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 series - Medical records
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
