Date of filing : 04-06-2008 Date of order : 13-08-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 77/08 Dated this, the 13th day of August 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Bindu, D/o.Kannan, R/at Palai, Puthariadukkam, Nileshwar (Via) Hosdurg Taluk } Complainant (Adv. T.V. Vijayan, Hosdurg) Dr.K.C.K. Raja, K.C.K. Raja Memorial Hospital, } Opposite party Nileshwar.Po, Hosdurg Taluk (Adv.M.Mahesh, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The case of complainant is as follows: On 8-6-2006 complainant Bindu was treated by opposite party as an out patient for a small injury on her right leg from the opposite party’s hospital. After examination T.T. (Tetanus Toxoid) injection was administered on her left deltoid as per the advice of the opposite party. After some time she felt irritation and itching on her left hand. Immediately it was reported to opposite party and she was advised to consume certain tablets. But on the next day itself the complainant realized that there was swelling on the injected area and she again consulted opposite party. The opposite party removed some blood from the injection site and advised complete bed rest to the complainant. Since the pain was unbearable she consulted Dr.Komalam at Nileshwar for further treatment. She advised complainant to consult a surgeon. Dr. Komalam removed some blood and puss from the injected site and advised for complete bed rest for one month. But complainant did not recover from pain and swelling. She had spent `10,000/- for her treatment. After one month when the pain could not tolerated complainant admitted at Pariyaram Medical College. There she treated as an in-patient for 6 months. After an elaborate check up it is confirmed that the entire problem caused only due to the negligence and carelessness of the opposite party and their staff. During the period of treatment the complainant could not attend her job. She was working as a book binder in a Vanitha Corporation at Nileshwar and drawing a salary of `2,000/-. Thereby she sustained the loss of salary `12,000/-. The complainant was demoted as sweeper of the society due to that she also suffered another pecuniary loss of `20,000/-. All the doctors who treated the complainant had a common opinion that the sufferings were caused only due to the negligence of opposite party. Due to the removal of flesh from the injected site there is a deep would scar appearing now. On 26-07-2007 complainant caused a registered lawyer notice to opposite party claiming a compensation of `50,000/-. The opposite party sent a reply stating that he treated complainant with utmost care and caution. Therefore the complaint claiming a compensation of `75,000/-as compensation. 2. Opposite party filed version denying all the allegations. According to opposite party on 8-6-06 complainant consulted opposite party with complaints of fever. Upon investigation the opposite party was of the opinion that complainant was suffering from viral fever and therefore opposite party prescribed Paracetamol tablets, Ciprova tablet and lasix tablet and asked the complainant to come for review after 3 days. But the complainant did not turn up thereafter. Neither in the complaint nor in the registered lawyer notice dated 26-7-07 issued on behalf of the complainant gives even minimum details of the treatments alleged to have been undergone by the complainant elsewhere. The allegation that the complainant approached on 8-6-2006 for a small injury on her right leg is not correct. Complainant was treated for fever. The opposite party has not advised the complainant to take T.T Injection. Neither opposite party nor his staff administered T.T. injection to complainant. The allegation that the alleged injection was taken on the left deltoid by the nurse of opposite party is false. All the allegations made in the complaint is false. To the registered notice dated 26-07-07 opposite party sent a brief reply dated 31-7-07 denying all allegations made in the notice. The complainant was treated with utmost care and caution. There is not negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party or his staff. The claim of the complainant is baseless and hence liable to be dismissed. 3. On the part of complainant PW1 Dr.Arunkumar of Pariyaram Medical College Hospital, PW2 Dr. Komalam Civil Surgeon, Nileshwar complainant herself as PW3 and Dr. Vinodkumar P of Nileshwar as PW4 were examined. Exts A1 to A13. Ext. X1 to Ext X1 c {c} and Ext. X2 marked. On the part of opposite party DW1 filed affidavit. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 4. The specific case of the complainant is that on 8-6-06 she consulted opposite party with a minor injury on her right leg and opposite party advised certain tablets including analgesics and also advised to administer a T.T. Injection. This is a practice in Vogue among the physicians. The purpose of T.T. Injection is to avoid contraction of Tetanus due to infection. There is nothing wrong in advising T.T. apart from other analgesics and antipyretics. But according to opposite party he has not advised T.T. Injection to complainant. But he admits that complainant consulted him on 8-6-06 and he advised certain tablets on that day. 5. Here one of the crucial issue to be determind is whether the opposite party administered of T.T. Injection to the complainant or not? 6. Ext.A7 is the copy of the registered lawyer notice issued at the instance of complainant to opposite party. The demand of the complainant in the said notice is compensation on account of the complications of the injection administered to her. To which opposite party sent Ext.A8. The contents of Ext.A8 is very vague and appears to be evasive. In that opposite party only stated that he has treated Bindu, the complainant with utmost care and concern in his clinic and he deny all allegations against him. It is pertinent to note that he has not denied the administration of T.T. Injection which was the root cause of the lawyer notice. The denial of the administration of T.T. Injection in his version is therefore can be considered as only a hindsight. Ext.A1 is the prescription issued by opposite party to the complainant. It is seen that prescription did not even contain the signature or initial of opposite party. According to opposite party he neither prescribed nor administered T.T injection to complainant. But according to complainant on account of the injection administered as per the direction of the opposite party by his staff nurse she suffered irritation and itching on the injection site. Therefore she repeatedly consulted opposite party on subsequent days. Since the pain became unbearable she consulted PW2 Dr.Komalam on 16-6-2006. PWD2 on examination issued Ext.A9 prescription. In which case history is scribed as pain and induration at the site of T.T. Injection. Ext.A9 is issued after 8 days of Ext.A1. This supports the case of PW1 that she was given T.T. Injection from the hospital of opposite party. As averred by opposite party if it is a false allegation then it was the duty of opposite party to prove it with ample, cogent and believable evidence regarding the motive behind such wild allegation. At this juncture it is to be mentioned here that DW1 during cross-examination has deposed that he don’t have any former acquaintance with complainant and she has no enemity against him. In such a situation a false allegation about the administration of T.T. Injection is not all believable and appears to be very awkward and therefore it can be concluded that from opposite party’s hospital complainant was administered with T.T. Injection and the said injection caused sufferings to complainant as evidenced from the subsequent treatments undergone by her. 7. Now another issue to be settled is whether the complications and the subsequent sufferings of complainant arose out of the administration of T.T. Injection can be considered as deficiency in service or negligence of opposite party. 8. PW1, Dr.Arunkumar of Pariyaram Medical College Hospital deposed that he has treated Bindu from 5-2-2007 onwards. Her complaint was pain and infection on her left deltoid. According to the patient it was occurred after T.T Injection. As part of his treatment he has removed some flesh and advised for pathology report about the specimen removed. According to him he cannot say whether complications occurred due to the injection taken to the complainant or it may be due to T.T. Injection. In cross-examination he further deposed that T.T. Injection will be given on intra-muscular and he has noticed the infection only on sub-cutaneous level (skin level). He further deposed that in the Ext.X2-X-ray of the left hand of the complainant he could not notice any foreign body. As per his diagnosis the complainant was suffering due to foreign body granuloma or foreign body giant cell reaction and there can be many reasons such as insect bite, poor resistance power of the patient etc. 9. PW2 Dr.Komalam Civil Surgeon of District Hospital, Kanhangad deposed that she issued Ext.A9 prescription to complainant. On cross examination she found the infection only at sub-cutaneous level. She also added that she could not say the reason for infection and the pain. 10. So the examination of PW1 & PW2 did not help the complainant in proving her case. Therefore it is unable to hold that the miseries to the complainant was caused due to the negligence of the opposite party. 11. But we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party on account of denial, particularly his advice to administer T.T. Injection from his hospital. Being an experienced, dutyful medical professional he should not have negated the treatment advised by him. Therefore opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. In the result complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay `25,000/- to the complainant together with a cost of `4000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which compensation `25,000/- will carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 8-6-10 prescription issued by opposite party. A2.Discharge Card of Bindu issued by Dist.Hospital kanhangad. A3.5-2-07 Out patient record of complainant (Pariyaram Medical College) A4.19-2-07 Out patient record of complainant(Pariyaram Medical College) A5. Series Cash bills. Pariyaram Medical College. A6.21-2-2007 Histopathology report of Bindu issued by Pariyaram Medical College. A7.26-7-2007 copy of lawyer notice. A8.31-7-07 letter issued by OP to complainant’s advocate Sri.T.V. Vijayan A9.16-06-06 Prescription issued by Dr.Komalam. A10.11-9-2006 ticket issued by Dist. Hospital, Kanhangad. A11.22-9-06 OP ticket issued by Dist. Hospital, Kanhangad. A12.10-01-2007 ticket issued by Dist. Hospital, Kanhangad. A12.10-01-2007 ticket issued by Dist. Hospital, Kanhangad. A13.18-01-2007 OP ticket issued by Dist.Hospital, Kanhangad. X1(a) Out patient record of complainant. X2(b)Out patient record of complainant X2© Histopathology report of Bindu issued by Pariyaram Medical College X2 X-ray of the complainant. PW1.Dr. Arunkumar PW2. Dr. Komalam PW3.Bindu PW4.Dr.Vinodkumar. DW1.Dr.K.C.K. Raja Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
