Ms.Hemanatha, filed a consumer case on 10 Oct 2019 against Dr.Kamala Selvaraj, Dr.Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 112/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Dec 2019.
Complaint presented on: 11.04.2012
Order pronounced on: 10.10.2019
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
THURSDAY THE 10th 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 1st & 2nd 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st opposite party had delegated for the surgery to the 2nd opposite party. After surgery, on the first day post-operative problem started, when expressed there was a rigid and careless reply by the 2nd 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 1st 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 1st & 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 10th 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 1st 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
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.