Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

112/2012

Ms.Hemanatha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Kamala Selvaraj, Dr.Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Nathan & Associates

10 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.04.2012

                                                               Order pronounced on:  10.10.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd 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

 

THURSDAY  THE 10^th   DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

 

C.C.NO.112/2012

 

M/s.Hemalatha,

W/o.N.Natarajan,

No.2/81, Main Road,

Aalangudi, Valangai Taluk,

Thiruvarur 612 801.

                                                                                       …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

 1.Dr.Kamala Selvaraj,

  W/o.Selvaraj,

 

2.Dr.Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj,

S/o. Selvaraj.

 

Both are Residing at:

G.G.Hospital Complex,

6E, Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s. Nathan and Associates

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                     : M/s.G.Govindarajan, M.Santhanaraman

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

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  suffered menstrual issues namely “Dysmenorrhea”  and “Hemorrhage”. On 09.06.2011 she came down from Tanjore and consulted with the opposite parties and was given an ID  No.U000235891 and under the guidance of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties  had made check-ups and was diagnosed with Fibroids in Uterus and she was advised for removal of the same. Mandatory check –ups were done the  next day and medicine cum drugs were given for 3 months. On 04.08.2011, 31.10.2011 she visited the 1^st opposite party for pre-checkups and for other tests for surgery.  The complainant stayed at Chennai in a rented house for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-  in order to undergo further treatment and surgery. On 08.11.2011 the complainant was admitted in the 1^st opposite party hospital for ‘Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with BSO” for the removal of Fibroads/Adenomyoma Uterus and the surgery was scheduled on 09.11.2011 at about 12.00 p.m. with patient number as 9422 and the 1^st opposite party  had delegated for the surgery to the 2^nd opposite party. After surgery, on the first day post-operative problem started, when expressed there was a rigid and careless reply by the 2^nd opposite party. Even though the complainant tolerated the pain, Urinary problem had continued and the complainant  suffered incessant urination on 10.11.2011, she was discharged on 11.11.2011 and went to Tanjore.  Since the incessant urination had not ceased and when she contacted the 1^st opposite party she was asked to come for the review and she came over on 28.11.2011. She was advised to meet Mr.Arunkumar of Apollo Hospital since there is some internal issue.  Several sectoral scans including “Intravenous pyelogram” were conducted and conclusively it was found that she had “VESICOVAGINAL FISTULA” by Dr.Arunkumar. It is confirmed with the report that “Contrast filled urinary bladder showing double density pattern at the base of urinary bladder, indicating Vesico-Vaginal fistula”. When it was provided to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties  they advised the complainant to consider the same as human  error. On  29.11.2011 the complainant was called upon for tube installation and a Uresol bag was fitted in the thigh portion of the complainant.  She used to carry the urine bag and could not even wear a proper dress. On 01.12.2011 the complainant consulted  Dr.Chinnasamy in  at Vijaya Hospital, where in pre- operative dialysis was done and later she preferred carrying Cystoscopy on 16.12.2011 and it was conclusively reported by the said doctor as SURGICAL REPAIR Vide CYSTO-URETHROSCOPY REPORT. Hence both opposite parties  are responsible for the said act of Surgical repair in the said area and also for the untold miseries physically and mentally. The 2^nd opposite party had agreed for the charges raised at Vijaya Hospital and hence the complaint.     

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          Surgery was done to the complainant and after surgery, when the complainant was treated in  ICU for intensive care  she was aided with nurses  and also when the post operative problem was reported  opposite parties  were rigid and  careless is incorrect. The complainant was discharged without any issues and complaint. On 28.11.2011 when the complainant came for post-surgical review she was examined by opposite parties and referred to Dr.Arunkumar  Senior Urologist for the opinion and diagnosis for “Vesico Vaginal Fistula”, and the said complication is medically accepted one in total  Laporoscopic Hysterectomy with BSO Procedure. Thereafter, the opposite parties have admitted the complainant on 29.11.2011 and gave treatment till 01.12.2011  on which date the complainant  wanted to get discharged against the medical advice. Post-surgical complications was purely due to her poor physical condition. Even before surgery on 08.11.2011  the procedure to be followed and the expected post-surgical complex were explained to the complainant  in Tamil. She has consented for the same by signing the consent form. After diagnosing VVF opposite parties have suggested for conservative management of the complication, though the complainant  agreed initially and later left voluntarily. The complainant  did not contact the opposite parties  after 01.12.2011. The other allegations are denied and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

3. 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?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant suffered  menstrual problem and contacted opposite parties  and she suffered “Dysmenorrhea” and “Hemorrhage” and was admitted in the opposite parties  hospital and surgery  was done in opposite parties  hospital  are admitted. G.G.Hospital –case report is  in Ex.A1 dated  09.06.2011. Ex.A2 is the medical report with pre- operative investigations. Reports submitted by Fertility Research Center dated  09.11.2011 is Ex.A3.The  complainant reported  that she suffered incessant urination   after surgery i.e. on 10.11.2011 and  was discharged on 11.11.2011.  The discharge summary is Ex.A4. The complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties at the time of her review on 28.11.2011 and she was referred to  urologist by name Dr.Arunkumar ,  who diagonised it as ’Vesico  Vaginal  Fistula’. It is also reported by the opposite parties  that the complainant   had gone against medical advice of the doctors at opposite parties hospital even though they were ready to treat her in their hospital. The contention of the complainant  is that she then contacted one  Dr.Chinnasamy at Vijaya Hospital and got herself operated for VVF and then she was recovered from her complaint. Therefore  the said  Vesico Vaginal Fistula was caused due to the deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

05. The opposite parties  would contend that  the complainant  was diagnosed with fibroids in uterus, since she was suffering from anemia, hence she was prescribed medication to alleviate anaemia. A surgery was performed on 09.11.2011 after  explaining her about the  procedure to be done  and post -surgical complications, knowing all these only she had given her  consent  and signed in the consent form. There was no incessant urination at the time of discharge as alleged by the complainant. When the complainant  came for review on 28.11.2011 she came with the complaint of urination and was sent to consult Urologist and was treated by the opposite parties  till 01.12.2011 and then she went out on her own, against the medical advice of opposite parties. VVF difficulty normally develops after the total Laproscopic Hysterectomy with BSO procedure and the allegation of carelessness and deficiency in service is denied. Hence opposite parties  are not liable for deficiency in service.

06. The complainant  was discharged after surgery of “Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with BSO” for the removal of  Fibroids/ Asenomyoma Uterus, from opposite parties hospital on 11.11.2011. She had gone for review on 28.11.2011. The complainant was suffering from incessant urination and she was referred to one  Dr.Arunkumar, Urologist and found that she had developed with Vesico Vaginal Fistula. The complainant points out that the developed VVF was due to negligent attitude of opposite parties and she suffered with carrying urine bag after surgery and was unable to wear dress and suffered mental agony etc  for which there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties defend that the development of VVF is medically accepted in Total Laproscopic hysterectomy with BSO procedure as well as open Hysterectomy procedure.  A tube fixed to drain urine directly from the Urinary bladder is called catheter was applied to the complainant after surgery. It is also an usual procedure  and normally applied to the patient after surgery. It is also not the case of the complainant that she has not given consent for the surgery.  The explanation given to the complainant as pointed out by the opposite parties before surgery regarding the procedure and also the post-operative management is not denied by the complainant specifically. Admittedly, the complainant was discharged and readmitted after 17 days of her surgery and also given treatment for the post-operative complication till 01.12.2012.  Despite the  medical advice by the opposite parties  for conservative management  the complainant insisted for discharge and hence it is to be accepted  as explained  by the  opposite parties that they  were not aware of the  subsequent treatment taken by the complainant  at that point of time.

           07. It is very important to analyze whether the post-operative complications occurred due to the negligence of the opposite parties  or VVF is  medically accepted as a post operative complication in Laproscopic hysterectomy or open hysterectomy. There is no expert opinion on the side of the complainant  to prove that the procedure adopted for the performed surgery was not correct which resulted in complications. Ex.A5 & Ex.A6  are the reference letter to Urologist and check-ups by at Apollo hospital is within the knowledge of opposite parties.   Radiology  report  in Ex.A7 indicates the Vesico-vaginal fistula. Bills pertaining to opposite parties hospital and bills with respect to Vijaya Hospital are marked as Ex.A8 & Ex.A9. Legal notice issued by the complainant through their counsel with acknowledgement is Ex.A10 and reply by opposite parties  is in Ex.A11.

08. The  2^nd opposite party was cross-examined by the complainant. During cross-examination, questions were focused on the points regarding  discharge  from opposite parties hospital after surgery,  alleged denial of  treatment to the complainant  by opposite parties,  incessant urination  suffered because of alleged lethargic  surgery done  by opposite parties  and due care was not given to the patient and  regarding alleged irresponsibility  and  careless  attitude towards the profession which resulted in great mental agony to the complainant  and those questions were denied and negatived  by 2^nd  opposite party . However, there is neither an expert opinion filed for the alleged lethargic surgery performed by opposite parties nor any  disclosure in the discharge summary or in the admission card of the Vijaya Hospital about the alleged poor performance  of the surgery earlier done  by opposite parties  which  is said to have resulted in VVF procedure.  The complainant had not challenged that the  opposite parties are not the qualified doctors. There is no evidence to prove that the opposite parties were careless and performed the surgery which is not required.

09. To support the claim of  the complainant  even though they referred in the written argument, they have not produced those Citations, whereas opposite parties  have produced the following citations  to support their arguments.

1.MD.ABBAS ANSARI

VS

DR.RAMESHWAR PD.AGARWAL

 

(NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) 2007

 

2.JACOB MATHEW

VS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

 

(SUPREME COURT CASES) (2005) 6 SCC

 

3. DR.R.N.K.BHARGAVE

VS

SMT.INDU SUKESHINI

 

(TELANGANA STATE  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION) AT HYDERABAD

 

In all the above cases as decided, when applied comparatively in the  present case, there is no evidence to show that the performance of surgery is unwarranted and there is an injury caused to the Urinary bladder which ended  incessant  urination and in VVF procedure and also the procedure adopted by  opposite parties  which was not acceptable to medical science. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite parties  have not possessed the requisite skill which they professed to have possessed. Here in the present case VVF difficulty had developed after seventeen days of  discharge  and the complainant  met the Urologist as suggested by opposite parties and then the complainant was treated for further management and then she left against the medical advice of opposite parties  and treated in another hospital at  her own wish. Therefore the allegations of the complainant is not proved and there is also no proof for the alleged discharge of the complainant with complications.   As argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties  and   as answered  by  the 2^nd opposite party in his cross- examination it is to be believed that VVF is caused due to various reasons  depending on the physiological conditions of the patient. In view of all these discussions there is no medical negligence or deficiency in service found on the part of opposite parties accordingly point no.1 is answered.

10. POINT NO.2:

As per the discussions held above there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties  and there cannot be any mental agony caused to the complainant   and the complaint  is not entitled for any relief  resulting in dismissal of the complaint. Complaint is dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.                        

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 10^th  day of October 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 09.06.2011                   G.G.Hospital – Case Report

Ex.A2 dated 10.06.2011         Medical Report of complainant given by Mediscan Systems

Ex.A3 dated 09.11.2011         Reports submitted by Fertility Research Center of G.G.Hospital

Ex.A4 dated 11.11.2011                   Discharge Summary given by opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 31.10.2011                   Reference letter given by 1^st opposite party

Ex.A6 dated 28.11.2011                   Report given by Apollo Heart Center

Ex.A7 dated 29.11.2011                   Report of  Radiology Department in G.G. Hospital

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Medical Bills of various medical centers

Ex.A9 dated 29.11.2011                   Vijaya Hospital – Case Profile

Ex.A10 dated 10.01.2012       Notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties

Ex.A11 dated 14.02.2012                 Reply Notice sent to the complainant        

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

                                                ….. NIL …..

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT