CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:21/7/2015
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/174/2012
Siji,
W/o.V.M.Santhosh,
Veethampully House, : Complainant
Man Kurissy (P.O),Palakkad Taluk,
Palakkad
(Advocates John John and Vivek)
Vs
1. Dr.Jose Jacob,
Consultant Interventional Cadiologist,
Department of Cardiology,
M/s.Welcare Hospital,
Welcare Junction,Near Mercy College,
Mercy College P.O,Palakkad Taluk,
Palakkad.
2. M/s.Welcare Hospital,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Near Mercy College,Mercy College P.O,
Palakkad Taluk,Palakkad.
3. M/s. DRS Associates : Respondents
Rep,by its Managing Partner,
Dr.Sudhakar
S/o Janardhanan Nair,
Scholar Towers, Kalpathy, Palakkad.
4. Dr.Sudhakar,
S/o Janardhanan Nair,
Managing Partner,
M/s DRS Associates
Residing at Scholar Towers,
Kalpathy, Palakkad.
5. Dr.Devadas,
Partner,M/s DRS Associates
Residing at Mankily,
Padiyodu kalam,Kannadi (P.o),
Palakkad Taluk,Palakkad.
6. Dr.Reghu Sankar,
Partner,M/s DRS Associates
Residing at Near Lions School,
Koppam, Palakkad.
7. A.V.Sathar,
Partner,M/s DRS Associates
Welcare Hospital, Melamuri,
Palakkad.
8. A.V.Manoj,
Partner, M/s DRS Associates,
Welcae Hospital, Melamuri, Palakkad.
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma.K.P, Member
The case of the Complainant is that she felt some breathing problem on 26.10.2011 and went to the second opposite party for treatment and she was treated as Out-Patient by the first opposite party who was attached to the second opposite party. The first opposite party advised the complainant to undergo some medical tests such as ECG, X-ray etc. On perusing the Reports of the above said medical tests, the first opposite party diagnosed that the complainant is a chronic cardiac patient and that she was having a heart block and the first opposite party advised the complainant to get admitted in CCU of the second opposite party. The first opposite party made the complainant to undergo several tests during the said period also. It is revealed that all the above said tests which were undergone by the complainant were the tests for cardiac patients. The complainant was given several medicines for cardiac patients during the above said period. Subsequently the complainant got discharged after three days and she was prescribed to have some cardiac medicines. The first opposite party further directed the complainant to undergo TMT test for every week and to consult him with the said report.
After taking the above said medicines which were prescribed by the first opposite party, the health condition of the complainant was getting worsened day by day. When the said situation was brought to the notice of the first opposite party, the complainant was prescribed to undergo Angiogram test.
On 01.02.2012 when the complainant was to book the first opposite party for consultation, it was informed by the second opposite party that the first opposite party had resigned from the second opposite party hospital and hence the complainant was advised by the second opposite party to consult Dr.Ragupathi who was attached to the second opposite party and fixed an appointment on the very same day. The Complainant consulted Dr.Ragupathi on 01.02.2012 at about 11 A.M. After perusing the former test reports of the complainant such as ECG, ECHO test, TMT test, X-ray, Blood test, Urine test etc., which were taken as per the advise of the first opposite party, Dr.Ragupathi was surprised and informed the complainant that all the reports are normal and came to a conclusion that the complainant is not a cardiac patient. Dr.Ragupathi also informed the complainant that the breathing problem of the complainant is only due to the allergy in the nose and advised to consult an E.N.T Specialist. Due to the above said contradictions in the diagnosis of the first opposite party and Dr.Ragupathi, the complainant consulted another doctor named Jayakumar, who is working as a Cardiologist in Thankam Hospital, Palakkad. After perusal of all the above said test reports, Dr.Jayakumar also approved the diagnosis of Dr.Ragupathi and opined that there is some negligence which happened to be caused from the part of the first opposite party and that the complainant is not a Cardiac patient. Dr.Jayakumar also advised the complainant to consult an ENT Specialist. Hence it is revealed that the diagnosis of the first opposite party was totally utter baseless and made with the intention for illegal enrichment.
Due to the above said reasons the complainant consulted Dr.Indudharan who is an ENT, Head and Neck Specialist in Thankam Hospital, Palakkad and after due examination, it was diagnosed that the complainant was suffering from allergic disease in the nose and prescribed some medicines. After taking the medicines prescribed by Dr.Indudharan, the illness of the complainant got fully cured.
To know that actual intention of the first opposite party, the complainant again consulted the first opposite party on 14.02.2012 at Sevana Hospital, Pattambi where he was working during that period. Even though the first opposite party was aware of the fact that the complainant is not a cardiac patient, the first opposite party prescribed the complainant to undergo Angiogram test with due intention for illegal enrichment. The above said act of the complainant, itself is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The first opposite party treated the complainant at the second opposite party hospital without proper diagnosis and both the opposite parties were totally negligent in the treatment given to the complainant. There was total deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which resulted in the suffering of the complainant from 26.10.2011 till 28.10.2011 at second opposite party Hospital. The complainant took the medicines prescribed by the first opposite party for three months. The complainant was suffering on all the days from 26.10.2011 to 01.02.2012 due to the consumption of medicines which were actually not needed. She was totally exhausted and laid up during that period due to the side effect of the medicines which were actually unnecessary. The complainant was even constrained to resign her job due to the above said intentional act of the opposite parties. Now also the complainant is under the side effect of the medicines prescribed by the first opposite party. Since the complainant’s health condition got worsened due to the above said intentional act for illegal enrichment, the husband of the complainant was constrained to windup his only livelihood business of auto-spare parts, in order to look after the complainant and it adversely affected the income of their family. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and this amounts to deceiving the complainant and thereby inducing her to pay the opposite parties which amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is left with no other alternative but to approach this Hon’ble Forum for the redressal of her grievances.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the Opposite parties for appearance. 2nd opposite paty entered appearance and filed version stating the following.
The alleged incident narrated in the complaint took place while the management and control of the Welcare Hospital was with the lessee and he had to be included as Opposite party. If at all the hospital is liable for any damages due to the negligence or otherwise of the 1st Opposite party Doctor who is employed and paid by the lessee during that period, who treated the complainant, only the lessee is vicariously liable for the same. The 2nd Opposite party is not liable for any compensation on any account and that complaint may be dismissed with cost. Notice to 1st opposite party returned unserved . Complainant filed application for impleading and amendment for impleading supplemental 3rd opposite party. Complainant also filed application for furnishing correct address of 1st opposite party by 2nd opposite party. Application was allowed . 2nd Opposite party filed affidavit stating that address is not Known. 3rd opposite party entered appearance and filed their version stating that since nothing is alleged against 3rd opposite party he is an unnecessary party in the above proceedings. There is no averment in the complaint while this 3rd opposite party has been impleaded in the complaint. There is no firm as described as 3rd opposite party the said firm has been legally dissolved. The 3rd Opposite Party understand that the complainant was a patient of the 1st Opposite Party and has come to the 2nd Opposite Party hospital at the instructions of the 1st Opposite Party. There is no negligence on the part of 3rd Opposite Party. Complainant is not entitled to any of the relief as claimed in the complaint. Complainant filed the another application for furnishing address of 1st opposite party by supplemental 3rd opposite party. Application was allowed. 3rd opposite party also filed statement stating that address is not known. Hence complainant filed petition for substituted service against 1st opposite party. Publication was ordered to be effected in Mathrubhoomi daily. Complainant produced publication against 1st opposite party. He was called absent and set exparte. Complainant filed chief affidavit. 2nd opposite party filed documents and application to cross examine the complainant. 2nd opposite party also filed chief affidavit. 3rd opposite party also filed application to cross examine the complainant. Complainant filed application for impleading an amendment of the complaint. Application was allowed in the interest of justice. Supplemental Opposite parties four to eight was impleaded. Supplemental opposite parties entered appearance and filed version opposite parties 4 ,6&8 submits that they are not aware of the state of affairs. Supplemental opposite parties 7&8 were running the hospital when it was leased out to supplemental 3rd opposite party. But they are partners of supplemental 3rd opposite party and were actually running the hospital. The complainant filed an additional affidavit. Opposite parties 4&5 remained absent in spite of notice hence was called absent and set exparte. Opposite parties also filed proof affidavits. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1-A20 as marked. Complainant filed petition for furnishing the correct address of Dr.Reghupathi, who was cited as a witness. 2nd opposite party filed affidavit stating that present address is not known. Complainant filed application to receive witness list. Summons was issued to the witness case sheet was also produced by 2nd opposite party . Complainant’s witness was examined as PW2. Rest of the witnesses stated in the witness list was not available for examination. Evidence was closed in the matter was heard.
Issues that arises for consideration are
1.Whether there was any negligence on the part of 1st opposite party?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of the first opposite party?
3. If so what are the reliefs and cost?
Issue No.1
The case of the complainant is that she had consulted the 1st opposite party at 2nd Opposite party’s hospital for treatment of breathing difficulties and was admitted in CCU, made to undergo several test and consume medicines meant for cardiac patient for more than two months. Due to continuous consumption of unnecessary heavy dose medicines the health of the complainant deteriorated . Later when the complainant consulted another doctor i.e Dr.Ragupathi who was examined as PW2 in the absence of 1st opposite party he opined that there is absolutely no cardiac problem for the complainant and she was advised to consult an ENT doctor. The ENT doctor found that the complainant had only allergic problems and she recovered within a few days of taking medicines for allergy. To prove the alleged fact Dr.Raghupathi who had subsequently examined the complainant was examined as PW2. A reading of the evidence of PW2 will show that it is not acceptable to prove medical negligence. During cross examination he had stated that “I can only say about the condition of the patient at the time of my examination. I cannot say what was the condition of the patient before my consultation”. I had not seen any USG report from Well care Hospital regarding this patient. “During chief examination he had deposed that “at the time of consultation, the complainant brought the records such as TMT, echo etc. on perusing those records, I felt that she had some other difficulties which was being cured . Report given by the Echo there are some abnormalities in the Echo report dated.27/10/2011 (Ext.A3) which shows there are some abnormalities in pumping out of the heart. It can be seen from the records produced by the complainant herself that there are 2nd USG reports – one from Well care Hospital and other from Thankam Hospital. As per the 1st USG report it is noted in the impression given therein that the complainant had Septal Dyskeinesia and Anterir Lateral Wall Hypokenisia . The 2nd USG report from the Thankam Hospital shows that the complainant had Mitral valve mild AML and mild Mitral valve prolapsy. Septal Dyskeinesia (SD) refers to a segment of heart muscle that is not moving properly. Septum is a layer of muscle between two upper or lower chambers. SD refers to the motion of interventricular septum. It could be due to damage to the muscle such as myocardial infarction. This may lead to congestive heart failure due to the effect in pumping action of the heart.
Mitral Valve prolapsy is the most common heart valve abnormality (Murder Syndrome ). This defect would allow leakage of blood through the valve opening back into the left artery. It may lead to heart failure and abnormal heart rhythum. It can cause irregular heartbeats or ineffective Endocardicts. Endocarditics is an infection of the inner lining of the heart chambers and valves. The bacteria may enter the blood stream causing acute infection. Some people need heart valve surgery to repair their Mitral valves.
From the above USG reports it can be inferred that she had complaints related to heart. The subsequent doctor had not stated what was wrong on the part of the doctor who is the 1st opposite party herein who prescribed by her with cardiac related medicine. Instead he has stated that the disease might have been cured. From the above observations we could not find any negligence on the part of the doctor who had treated the complainant. Or else the complainant had failed to prove what was the negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party doctor. Even though allegations were made against the doctor and Opposite parties 3to 6, what is the negligence on the pact of opposite parties 3to 6 is not stated in the complaint. PW1 has also admitted in cross examination that there is no mistake on the pact of opposite parties 3 to 6 and they have not treated her. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
In view of the above findings, issue no.2 and 3 requires no consideration. In view of the above facts the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of August 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1series – Medical Bills (17 Nos)of Welcare Hospital dated 26/10/2011
Ext.A2 –ECG Report dated 27/10/2011
Ext.A3 –Echocardiography Report dated 27/10/2011
Ext.A4- Bill of Welcare Hospital dated 28/10/2011
Ext.A5 series-Prescriptions (3 Nos)
Ext.A6-Discharge Summary. Dated 28/10/2011
Ext.A7-Prescription Dated 1/11/2011
Ext.A8 series-Summary Report (7 pages)
Ext.A9-Prescription dated 15/11/2011
Ext.A10 series-Lab Reports (2 Nos)of Welcare Hospital dated 21/11/2011
Ext.A11-Prescription dated 3/1/2012
Ext.A12-Appointment Card of Dr.Raghupathi, Welcare Hospital dated 1/2/2012
Ext.A13-Prescription Dated 1/2/2012
Ext.A14 series- Bill cum Receipts (5 Nos)
Ext.A15 series- Prescription (5 Nos)of Thankam Hospital , dated 1/2/2012
Ext.A16 series-Bills (5 Nos) dated 1/2/2012
Ext.A17-Echo Report dated 1/2/2012
Ext.A18- Prescription of Sevana Hospital dated 3/2/2012
Ext.A19 series-Bills(2 Nos) dated 3/2/2012
Ext.A20-Certificate of Dr.Jose Jacob, sevana Hospital dated 14/2/2012
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
PW1-Siji
Commission Report
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Nil
