Mrs.S.Veera Rajeswari filed a consumer case on 30 Aug 2019 against Dr.K.Arvind in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/91/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Sep 2019.
Complaint presented on: 27.06.2017
Order pronounced on: 30.08.2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL - PRESIDENT
TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I
FRIDAY THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2019
C.C.NO.91/2017
Mrs.S.Veera Rajeswari,
W/o.Mr.R.S.Krishnaswamy,
No.13/7, 3rd Street, Thiru Nagar,
Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.
…..Complainant
..Vs..
1.Dr.K.Arvind,
Consultant – Radiologist,
Proscans Diagnostics Pvt.Ltd.,
#36 & 39, MTH Road,
Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.
2.Dr.Aysha Shaheen,
No.83, Thirumangalam Road,
(Next to Pooja Stationery),
Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.
| .....Opposite Parties
|
|
Counsel for Complainant : M/s.R.Bakyaraj, B.Abdul Samath,
N.Babu
Counsel for 1st opposite party : M/s.M.Nandan & S.Packiaraj
Counsel for 2nd opposite party : M/s. Dr.B.Cheran, M.Nagarethinam
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 27.02.2017 at her clinic to diagnose the health issue viz. irregular menstrual. The 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to take abdomen scan and also recommended to take the scan especially in the diagnostic centre of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to take the said scan on 04.03.2017. In the said report dated 04.03.2017, the 1st opposite party has mentioned as if the complainant’s “Pancreas size is normal and it shows uniform texture” and “Spleen also appear normal in size and it shows uniform echotexture”. The complainant already undergone one surgery and her half of the pancreas and spleen were removed. Because of the said report the complainant had undergone mental agony. The act of the 1st opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service, whereas both the opposite parties had indulged in medical negligence, which caused serious hardship, mental agony besides loss of money and time to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 04.03.2017 for taking scan. It is false to state that on 04.03.2017 a scan report was given to her with a finding that “Pancreas size is normal and it shows uniform texture and spleen also appear normal size and it shows uniform echotexture”. The fact is that there was an error in scrutiny and typing. Hence, the 1st opposite party informed her to collect the correct report. Accordingly correct report was typed on 04.03.2017 at 9.07 p.m but she never collected the report on the same day. There is a reason to get error because the stomach, duodenum, and so on are covered with single or multiple firm yellow, grey docules in the gut wall measure from several M.M. to 4 C.M. Those will overlap the precuts and ileum. Therefore there is a possibility of resulting error. The complainant has not made out any medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The complaint against the 1st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The complainant had come to the 2nd opposite party for consultation for irregular menstruation and lower abdominal pain. She did not bring any of her previous health records. The 2nd opposite party had suggested the complainant to take an Ultrasound abdomen. When the complainant expressed that she did not know any scan centre and wanted to know the nearest centre to her residence, the 2nd opposite party suggested Proscans. The 2nd opposite party has only referred to a proper scan centre which is also nearby to the complainant’s residence. It is no where stressed that the complainant has to take her scan only in this centre. The 2nd opposite party stoutly deny the allegation of the complaint that she had referred to Proscans for the purpose of making money. The 2nd opposite party had not prescribed any medicines to her. The complainant did not suffer any damages what so ever and hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?
5. POINT NO :1
The case of the complainant is that she approached the 2nd opposite party on 27.02.2017 in her clinic to diagnose her complainant’s health issue i.e. irregular menstruation for which the complainant was advised to get abdomen scan done from 1st opposite party’s scan centre. On 04.03.2017 the complainant approached the said scan centre and disclosed the fact of removal of half of the Pancreas and also the Spleen and then the scan was taken. On the same day evening the complainant got the report ready and was shocked to see the report with following particulars. “Pancreas size is normal and it shows uniform texture” and “Spleen is also appear in normal in size and it shows uniform echotexture”. Again another scan was taken by the complainant in a different scan centre to know the real position and confirmed regarding the removal of half of the pancreas and spleen. If she had taken the treatment from the 2nd opposite party based on the scan report given by the 1st opposite party there would have been a serious issues to her life. Hence the complaint is preferred for deficiency in service against opposite parties.
06. Ex.A1 is the Ultrasound Abdomen and Pelvis of the Complainant issued by Vee Care Hospital dated 30.01.2010 wherein it is incorporated as “ Pancreas: Head visualized and appears within normal limits” and “Spleen:Nor visualized Post splenectomy status”. Ex.A2 discharge summary discloses that Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy was done on 27.01.2010. Ex.A3 is the Sonogram report of the complainant issued by Precision Diagnostics. Ex.A4 is the prescription issued by the 2nd opposite party wherein it could be noticed that a word is stricken out and below that it is written as “Proscans”, which is pointed out by the complainant as the recommendation of the 2nd opposite party to get the complainant scanned in the 1st opposite party’s scan centre. Ex.A5 is the Ultra sound- whole abdomen report of the complainant issued by 1st opposite party where under the Head of Pancreas it is stated as “Ultrasound – whole Abdomen”. Prescription issued by the 2nd opposite party is Ex.A6. Legal notice issued by the complainant to 1st & 2nd opposite parties dated 14.03.2017 through her Advocate with acknowledgement is Ex.A7 and letter sent by the opposite party’s Advocate and the reply notices issued by the opposite parties through their Advocate are Ex.A8 & Ex.A9.
07. Learned counsel for 1st opposite party has put forth the points referring the materials on record in some of the medical books like Hutchison’s Clinical Methods (18th Edition), Manipal Manual of Surgery (3rdEdition), Davidson’s Principles and Practice of Medicine (21stEdition) and those reference materials are marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 and would contend that the error occurred and it was then corrected and the complainant was called to collect the report but she did not turn up and the report was in turn sent to 2nd opposite party also and that later report is marked as Ex.B8 and also the complainant had not taken any treatment based on the scan report. Therefore there is no negligence on the part of 1st opposite party.
08. The 2nd opposite party would contend by filing written argument and written version that she referred the 1st opposite party’s scan centre on request of the complainant which is nearby to the residence of the complainant and the complainant had not been prescribed with any medicine. Hence there is no negligence on the part of 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is unnecessarily impleaded.
09. The complainant first approached the 2nd opposite party on 27.02.2017 for her health issue i.e. for irregular menstrual problem and 2nd opposite party had advised for abdomen scan. Accordingly the complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 04.03.2017 for taking scan and the scan report is Ex.A5. Earlier half of the complainant’s Pancreas and Spleen were removed as per the contention of the complainant. But the report in Ex.A5 reveals that Pancreas size is normal with uniform texture and spleen appears in normal size with uniform echotexture. The complainant had already taken a scan at precision diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., two months later to her surgery to confirm the status and received a correct report in Ex.A3. Discharge summary of the complainant issued by the Vee Care Hospital in Ex.A2 reveals that she was diagnosed with Papillary Cystic Neoplasm of body of Pancreas and Surgery in the year 2010 was done for Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy and the impression given in the report filed along with Ex.A3 attachment from Precision diagnostics Pvt. Ltd confirms the Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy status and this status is not denied by both opposite parties.
10. Ex.A4 is the prescription issued by 2nd opposite party to the complainant for USG abdomen Scan when the complainant approached for her health ailment. We can see the scored out portion and below that it is written as Proscans. The allegation of the complainant is that 2nd opposite party herself voluntarily recommended to 1st opposite party’s scan centre in such way she is also responsible for the negligent activity of 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party would contend that she happened to write the name of the 1st opposite party’s scan centre because of the request made by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party to recommend for a nearest scan centre from her residence and not because of any intention or motive. It is to be accepted as true statement while noticing the residential address of the complainant and scan centre of the 1st opposite party at Villivakkam and it is also important to notice the letter Head of 2nd opposite party if it had been intentional or for any other purpose as put forth by the complainant 2nd opposite party could have used the Letter pad of the scan centre of 1st opposite party, which course is normally available with doctors. The complainant’s allegation as the 2nd opposite party had not taken the matter serious, when the complainant explained and reported the receipt of scan report from 1st opposite party is not substantiated by the complainant. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 06.03.2017 the complainant was advised to undergo BHCG estimation and patient was not willing and is noticed from the prescription in Ex.A6 and admittedly 2nd opposite party had not prescribed any medicines to the complainant. Therefore as discussed above the 2nd opposite party’s act cannot be treated as negligent act and the 2nd opposite party is not liable for any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
11. The documents marked on the side of 1st opposite party in Ex.B8 is the scan report alleged to be corrected by 1st opposite party and sent to 2nd opposite party after 1st opposite party could not find the complainant to serve the report at once. The earlier scan report from the 1st opposite party Lab is Ex.A5 dated 04.03.2017. It is corrected in Ex.B8 under the head of Spleen as “Spleen not visualised-Post surgical status”. The contention of the complainant is that she informed the 1st opposite party prior to the scan regarding her earlier surgery and the removal of half of the pancreas and spleen. But the 1st opposite party contends that neither the complainant nor the opposite party had divulged any fact of previous surgery and the body and half of the tail was covered with fleshy lining fibrous based on the sensitivity, 1st opposite party had mentioned about the presence of pancreas when the first report was issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party on that day. When he tried to send the report to the 2nd opposite party i.e to the referred doctor he scrutinized the report and found the mistake and corrected the same and reported the matter to complainant at 9.10 p.m. over mobile phone and asked her to come and collect the report. Since the complainant has not turned up the report was sent to the 2nd opposite party through their staff. The 2nd opposite party had not disclosed the receipt of rectified report in her written version. Had it been sent to the 2nd opposite party she would have disclosed about the receipt of rectification report in her written version. Once the report is received by the complainant there ends the matter and there cannot be any rectification or else look into the matter once again by 1st opposite party himself unless and until it is reported as incorrect and pointed out by someone. Therefore it is concluded that the second report is prepared only after coming to know about the situation and to wriggle out the situation and also to pose as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
12. Learned counsel for 1st opposite party has submitted Ex.B1to Ex.B7 and Ex.B9 to Ex.B11 the medical reports and periodicals and argued as follows;- Hutchison’s clinical methodology applied to investigate abdominal disease with Ludh test, triple test, ERCP test, Ultrasound and C.T.Scan and suggested that Pelvic report is one and the same in both the reports and to treat the irregular menstruation pelvic report is sufficient if that be taken into account by 2nd opposite party for treatment there is no negligent on the part of 1st opposite party. C.T.Scan USG are full proof and successful rate is 70% if the organ is suffered from any disease it will reflect low sensitivity and also gas and obesity may obscure the view also and in Carcinoma cases if tumor is affected the head the body and the tail cannot be seen and adeno- carcinoma is distributed 60% to the head of pancreas 15% of the body and 5% to the tail of the pancreas etc., The cited portions of the study is only with reference to study materials and not a concluded answer for the fault occurred in this case.
13. If the portion is not found place in view of the reasons stated in the study of medicine as referred by 1st opposite party how could it be possible for the 1st opposite party to fish out the image of spleen and pancreas as normal in the first report and then to come to the conclusion as it is not visible. Theoretical suggestions has nothing to do with this case in hand and visualizing the organ as normal first and then not visible later proves the irresponsible care taken by the 1st opposite party. It clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party.
14. Further it is also argued by 1st opposite party that no harm is done to the complainant in view of the first report and she has not taken any medication further based on the first report. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had not taken further treatment based on the first report given by 1st opposite party. But the complainant must have undergone depression and mental agony with confused state of mind with respect to the issue and she would not expected such a response from a responsible person whose responsibility is wider than the normal person. Hence she is to be compensated for her mental agony caused by the 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for his negligent act and point no.1 is answered against the 1st opposite party.
15. POINT NO:2
In view of the discussions held in point no.1, the complainant’s mental agony suffered in view of the negligent act of 1st opposite party is accepted by this forum as reported in the complaint by the complainant and as discussed in the earlier point. The alleged deficiency in service against 2nd opposite party is not proved by the complainant hence the complaint against 2nd opposite party is dismissed. Having considered the circumstances this forum is of the view that it is fit to order Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused by 1st opposite party and it would also be appropriate. The 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-for costs. The complaint in respect of the 2nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for costs. The complaint against 2nd opposite party is dismissed.
The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30th day of August 2019.
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 30.01.2010 Ultrasonogram Abdomen & Pelvis of the complainant issued by Vee Care Hospital
Ex.A2 dated 25.01.2010 Discharge Summary of the complainant issued by the Vee Care Hospital
Ex.A3 dated 27.04.2010 Sonogram Report of the complainant issued by the Precision Diagnostics Pvt.Ltd.,
Ex.A4 dated 27.02.2017 Prescription for scan issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A5 dated 04.03.2017 Ultrasound – Whole Abdomen Report of the complainant issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6 dated 06.03.2017 Prescription issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A7 dated 14.03.2017 Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties through her lawyers
Ex.A8 dated 25.04.2015 Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant’s lawyers
Ex.A9 dated 05.05.2017 Reply notice issued by the opposite parties to the notice issued by the complainant
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 dated NIL Hutchison’s Clinical Methods 131,132
Manippal Manual of Surgery pages, 491 to 493
Davidsons principals and practice of Medicine,
Pages 845, 846
Ex.B2 dated NIL Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine pages 184 to 187
Ex.B3 dated NIL Manipal Manual of Surgery, pages 480 – 481
Ex.B4 dated NIL SRB’s Manual of Surgery, pages 626 & 627
Ex.B5 dated NIL John L.Wilsons Hand Book of Surgery, pages 477
- 483
Ex.B6 dated NIL Pathology basis of disease by Robin and Cotran, pages 480 – 481
Ex.B7 dated NIL Human Anatomy by BD Chaurasia, 4th Edition, pages 283 to 388
Ex.B8 dated 04.03.2017 USG Scan report issued at 9.07 p.m
Ex.B9 dated NIL FAQ’s in diabetes pages 192-193 by Rajee Chowla and Aastha Chowla
Ex.B10 dated NIL Hot, Topics Hypertension, pages 192, 193
Ex.B11 dated NIL Davidsons principles and practice of Medicine, pages 802 & 803
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.