D.O.F. 09.06.2009

                                                                                   D.O.O. 26.05.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                   :               President

                   Smt. K.P.Preethakumari    :              Member

                   Smt. M.D.Jessy                 :               Member

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2011

C.C.No.49/2007

Asha @ Ashalatha,

W/o. Raveendran,

Calayichi Parambil (H)                                          :  Complainant

Cheruvanchery Amsom,

Poovathoor Desam

 (Rep. by Adv. K. Shiju)

1.  Dr. Johny Sebastian,

     Jose Giri Hospital,

     Thalasssery    

    (Rep. by Adv. P. Mahamood)                                      :  Opposite parties

2.  Superintendent,

     Jose Giri Hospital,

     Thalassery.

     (Rep. by Adv. P. Mahamood)                 

O R D E R

Sr. K. Gopalan,  President.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of              ` 50,000 as compensation together with the cost of this proceedings.

          The case of the complainant in brief are as follows :  Complainant was admitted in the Jose Giri Hospital on 16.01.2007.  The complainant delivered a female baby and the baby was subject to ultra sound scan as well as blood test.  1^st opposite party administered wrong injection and medicine to the child.  Within 2 days of continuing the injection the condition of the child became worse.  The child stopped sucking of milk and become pale.  Baby was discharged on request and took to                    Dr. K.P.A Siddeek.  He examined the child and opined that the injection administered by the opposite party was harmful to the child and it was unnecesary.  The medicine prescribed by 1^st opposite party were discontinued.  Due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the complainant and her relatives suffered great mental agony, hardship and loss.  Opposite party ought to have taken utmost care and caution but he was negligent and hence complainant suffered much loss.  On 05.02.2007 complainant sent a registered lawyer notice to opposite party called upon to pay 50,000 as damages.  1^st opposite party sent a reply denying entire allegations.  Hence this complaint. 

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party No.1 & 2 entered appearance and filed  version separately.  The contentions that have been taken by 1^st opposite party in brief are as follows :  1^st opposite party is a Consultant Paediatrician working in Jose Giri Hospital, Thalassery.  The complainant referred to as mother of the baby delivered a female baby on 16.01.2007.  The baby cried immediately.  The birth weight was 3.5 Kg.  Anterior fontanen was at level.  Moro’s reflex was present.  The cry/tone activity were good.  Sucking reflex was present.  Chest was clear and heart sound appeared normal.  On 16.01.2007 baby had low-grade fever but was accepting feeds normally.  Baby had passed urine and meconium.  On examination baby was afebrile, sucking well, vitals were normal and moro’s reflexts were present.  On 18.01.2007 mother complained the baby of irritable incessant cry and not accepting feeds well.  She complained that the baby had fever and cried excessively during micturitor.   Temperature was recorded 102⁰F, sucking reflex was pure, cry tone and activity was not satisfactory.  Since all these features were in favour of septicaemia baby was shifted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) for continuous observation.  Urine examination reported 25-30 pus cells.  Injection sefotaxime was started.  Thus fever was reduced.  On 19.01.2007 the baby continued to have irritable cry.  On examination baby was febrile suck reflects better, vitals were normal and hydradation was adequate. On 20.01.2007 the urine examination was repeated which reported the presence of 16-18 pus cells.  Since urine had pus cells injection amikacin was also started.  It was decided to continue the injections for a total period of 7 days and repeat the microscopic examination.  Since the baby was feeling better she was shifted to mother’s room on 20.01.2007.  The baby was active and accepting feeds well.  On 21.01.07 ultra Sonogram USG was done to rule out any congenital renal anomaly.  On 20.01.2007 the relatives required for discharge as the baby was doing well.  They assured that they have facility to continue the injection for another 2 days.  At the time of discharge baby was afebrile and accepting feeds well.  If the baby was sick as alleged complainant would have taken the baby immediately to the Doctor but the baby was taken only the next day.  Baby was discharged on 22.01.2007 and the baby was taken to Dr. K.P.A. Siddeek on 23.01.2007.  Doctors prescription mentioned that the baby was brought for general check up.  It shows that complainant had not mentioned K.P.A. Siddeek for regarding the treatment of baby by the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party has done all the requisite investigation and treatment with best attention and care and had acted with reasonable skill and knowledge.  There is no negligence on the part of opposite parties.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          2^nd opposite party filed version separately but repeated the same pleadings of 1^st opposite party.  It is not written here the same for avoiding repetition.

          On the above pleadings following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.           Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties?

2.           Whether complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint?

3.           Relief and cost?

Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and the documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A11 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

Issues No.1 to 3

          Admittedly complainant was admitted in this hospital on  16.02.2007.  She delivered a female baby.  The case of the complainant is that 1^st opposite party administered  wrong injection and medicine to the child which is harmful to its health.  Since the condition of the baby became dangerous, the relatives requested to discharge the baby and after discharge baby was taken to Dr. K.P.A. Siddeek and on examination he opined that the child was administered injection  which were harmful to the child unnecessarily to the mistakes given by opposite party No.1 were discontinued and the baby was saved.

          Opposite parties on the other hand contended that the allegations made by the complainant are mere assumptions without any proof. He stated that on 22.01.2007 the relatives required for discharge as the baby was doing well.  He further contended that at the time of discharge baby was afebrile and accepting feeds well.  Dr. Siddeek who examined the baby thereafter mentioned in his prescription that the baby was brought for general check up, which shows the treatment of 1^st opposite party was not mentioned to the Doctor.  It is further contended that appropriate standard treatment and the best attention and care and had acted with reasonable skill and diligence as could he expected from any other paediatrician in identical circumstances.

          Complainant filed chief affidavit in tune with the pleadings.  So also opposite parties filed their affidavit totally denying the allegation of complainant.  Ext.A1 is the birth record which shows delivery was normal having birth weight of 3.5 Kg.  Ext.A2 is the discharge summary which has been recorded the date of admission 16.01.2007 and date of discharge 22.01.2007.  Discharge summary does not show any dangerous position.  Ext.A3 dated 22.01.2007 is the Ultra Sound Scan Report.  The finding in Ext.A3 seen recorded, kidney was normal.  Ext.A4 is the prescription given by Dr. Siddeek.  No history of treatment seen written in the prescription.  Opposite party has the case that baby was taken to Dr. Siddeek for general check up.  That all dated 21.01.2007 shows that it has been record as contended by opposite party “general check up”.  PW1, in her deposition deposed that “A4 Â come for general check up F¶mWv Fgp-Xn-bXv”  That shows the treatment of Dr. Siddeek has no connection with the earlier treatment.

          It can be seen Ext.B1 reveals on 17.01.2007 baby had low grade fever.  It is also recorded.  Baby had passed urine, meconium, accepting feeds well.  It is also written that vitals were normal and Moro’s reflex was present.  On 18.01.2007 there is complaint of irritable incessant cry, fever and excessive cry during micturition.  It can also be seen sucking reflex, cry/tone and activity not satisfactory 1^st opposite party contended that since all these features were in favour of urinary tract infection leading to septicaemia Baby was shifted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU).  Ext.B1 recorded that Baby was shifted to NICU and suspected septicaemia.  On next day also case sheet shows that fever and irritable cry continued but suck better, vitals also were normal and hydradation adequate.  Ext.B1 reveals that on 20.01.2007 baby was well and there was adequate hydration.  The evidence of mother PW1 also confirms that the condition of the baby was better.  In cross examination PW1 deposed that “19.01.2007\v Ip«n¡v thZ\ t`Z-ambn.  Ip«n ]mep IpSn-¡p-¶p-­m-bn-cp-¶p.  20.01.2007\v   ICUhn \n¶v Ip«nsb sIm­p-h-¶n-cp-¶p.  22\v Ip«n¡v t`Z-am-b-Xp-sIm­v t]mI-WT F¶p ]d-ªn-cp-¶p.  AXp-sIm­v 22-.01.07\v opposite party No.2 Hospital- \n¶v dishcharge sNbvXn-cp-¶p.”  What is deposed by complainant is tallying with Ext.B1.  Then the complainant’s case is that after discharge the disease of the baby was increased.  Same day baby was admitted in Unity Hospital and went to the home of Dr. Siddeek on 23.01.2008.  PW1 deposed that  “23\v Siddeek tUmIvS-dpsS ho«n t]mbn.  Ip«n¡v Ipg-¸-sam-¶p-an-Ã.  New born Baby¡v aq{X-¯n IeÀ¸p-­m-Ip-T.  AXmWv     test sNbvX-Xv.  Thsd injection H¶pT sNt¿-­-Xnà F¶p tUmIvSÀ ]d-ª-Xp-sIm­v injection sh¨n-Ã.  Hospital- t]mb hnh-cT ]cm-Xn-bn ]d-ªn-«n-Ã.” It is important to note that Doctor Siddeek was of opinion that there was anything serious that would have been recorded in his prescription. PW1 also deposed that “Affidavitþ 1^st opposite party sImSp¯ injection\pT acp-¶pT aqe-amWv Ip«n¡v Akp-JT IqSn-bXv F¶p ]d-bm³ Imc-WT tUmIvSÀ ]d-ª-Xp-sIm-­m-Wv.  Ip«n¡v Poh³ Xs¶ A]-I-S-¯n-em-¡m³ km[-y-X-bp-ff acp-¶mWv F¶mWv Siddeek  tUmIvSÀ `À¯m-hn-t\mSv ]d-ª-Xv.”  If that be so what is the reason for non-mentioning of previous history of baby’s treatment in the prescription Ext.A4.  Complainant herself deposed that “Ext.A4  come for general check up F¶mWv Fgp-Xn-b-Xv.”  This recording also makes it clear that the complainant had not mentioned anything about the treatment of 1^st opposite party.

          1^st opposite party gave two injections to baby namely taxim and Amikacin.  PW1 deposed that “1^st opposite party tcmK-\nÀ®-bT sNbvX-Xn\p tijT tcmK-¯n\p ]änb NnInÕ F¶ \ne-¡mWv injection taximDT AmikacinDT \ÂIn-bXv F¶p ]d-ªm icn-bmWv”.  She has further deposed “16.01.2007 apX discharge sNbvX 22.01.2007 hsc 1^st opposite party sNbvX NnInÕ hgn Ip«n-¡p-­mb UTI  Akp-JT t`Z-s¸«v discharge sNbvX tij-ap-ff Ime-b-f-hn Ip«n-bpsS tZl-Øn-Xn-bn Cu NnInÕ sIm­v bmsXmcp A]m-I-X-bpT D­m-bn-«nà F¶p ]d-ªm icn-bmWv.” Complainant herself has no concrete case that the treatment of the 1^st opposite party resulted in any consequences that affect the health of the child in future adversely.  No evidence adduced by complainant to prove that the treatment of the 1^st opposite party has been effected the health of the child negatively.   Where as the records proves that the treatment of the doctor was successful and found nothing against accepted line of medical treatment. 

          In the light of the above discussion we are of opinion that complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the issues No.1  to 3 are found against complainant.

          In the result, the complaint stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

                              Sd/-                     Sd/-               Sd/-

President                  Member           Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Birth Record

A2.  Discharge summary

A3.  Ultrasound scan report

A4.  Prescription sheet of Dr. K.P.A. Siddeek.

A5.  Lab report

A6.  Slip issued for urine test.

A7.  Lab report

A8.  Bill of medicine charges

A9.  Postal receipt

A10. Lawyer notice

A11. Reply letter dated 13.02.2007.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Case sheet

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant.

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT