IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2016
Filed on 17.11.2014
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC.No.305/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. V. Rajeev Dr. Louis Thomas
Thazhchayil Dial Scans
Punnapra (N) P. O. Doctors Imageology and
Alappuzha Laboratories
(By Adv. V. S. Ullasanathan) Alappuzha
(By Adv. P. K. Mathew)
O R D E R
SMT.JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant was admitted at Lakeshore Hospital on 7.9.2009 and there he underwent a surgery to remove the Gallbladder on 15.9.2009. Thereafter a USG scan done on 3.4.2010 revealed that the Gallbladder was absent. Thereafter as a part of his continuous treatment the complainant approached the opposite party on 29.10.2014 for taking the Ultra Sound Scan of the abdomen and paid an amount of rs.550/- towards the test fee. In the report the opposite party stated that the Gallbladder was normal. The complainant informed the opposite party that his Gallbladder was already removed and requested for another USG. But the opposite party has not done so. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows.
The complaint is not maintainable. The primary job of a Radiologist is to assist in making a diagnosis. In this case the complainant’s diagnosis of hepatic parenchymal disease was made. USG Scan is not a specific test, false positive and false negative are common. Water filled bowel loops are sometimes mistaken as gall bladder. The allegation that we refused for rescanning is false as we were always ready for scanning. He never disclosed the true fact to us. Thus it can be seen that there is no deficiency of service or dereliction of duty on our part at all. The petitioner has no cause of action nor entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for. The petition is ill-motivated. He has previous enmity to us. The history of gallbladder operation was never mentioned during the time of scan. This information is deliberately untold by the petitioner during scanning. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents A1 to A5 were marked. The opposite party was examined as RW1 and produced one document which was marked as Ext.B1. One witness Dr. Josey Varghese was examined as RW2.
4. Considering the allegations to the complainant and contentions of the opposite party the forum has raised the following points for consideration.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?
5. The points 1 & 2 can be considered together. The case of the complainant is that he underwent a surgical procedure to remove the gallbladder on 15.9.2009. The USG taken on 3.4.2010 clearly stated that the gallbladder was absent. The complainant on 24.10.2014 approached the opposite party for taking an Ultra Sound scan of the abdomen, and in that result the opposite party stated that the gallbladder was normal. Hence filed this complaint seeking compensation for the negligence and deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.
6. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Ext.A1 is the scanning report dated 3.4.2010. Ext.A2 is the discharge summary from Lakeshore hospital dated 22.9.2009. Ext.A3 is the scanning report dated 29.10.2014 issued by the opposite party. Ext.A4 is the scanning report dated 7.9.2009. Ext.A5 is the cash receipt dated 29.10.2014 issued by the opposite party. From the documents Ext.A1, A2 & A4 it can be seen that the complainant was suffering from gallbladder calculus and his gallbladder was removed by a surgical procedure at Lakeshore Hospital on 15.9.2009. On further scanning on 3.4.2010 (Ext.A1) it is clearly stated that the gallbladder was absent.
7. According to the opposite party the scanning is done in making a diagnosis. In this case the complainant’s disease was already diagnosed. When RW1 was examined, he disposed that the removed organ, gallbladder is like a balloon and on eating food it contracts and looks like a membrane. While performing a cholecystectomy the entire organ is not removed. The upper position of the gallbladder is cut open and only the stones are removed. So the organ after the surgery will resemble a membrane. After the surgery only a ligature is applied which resembles a membrane and the ligature may not be identified in the scan. When the Doctor asked the complainant whether any surgery was done he replied nothing was done. Further when PW1 was examined he admitted that he never disclosed to the Doctor that his gallbladder was already removed. Dr. Josey Varghese RW2 deposed that it is difficult to identify the removed gallbladder until and unless the patient disclosed the history of surgery. In Ext.A3 report it is sated that the gallbladder is normal in wall thickness and lumen. It is also pertinent to note that the said Ext.A3 was signed by the opposite party. On evaluating the entire records we can see that there was a mistake on the part of the opposite party in preparing the Ext.A3 result. The person handling with health and related services should show utmost care in their service. Since the opposite party has not exercised the reasonable care in issuing the result the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The complainant claimed for a compensation of Rs 98,000/-. In this case from the scan report dated 7.9.2009 reveals that the complainant is having “cholelithiasis” and there after he underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the further scan on 3.4.2010 shows that the gallbladder was removed. So the complainant is well aware of the fact that the gallbladder was removed. Scanning is usually done in diagnosing a disease. Here the diagnosis relating to the gallbladder disease was already made and necessary treatment was also taken. Since the diagnosis and treatment of the gallbladder was already done. Ext.A3 result does not cause any harm to the complainant. Therefore the amount claimed by the complainant as compensation is exorbitant. The amount of compensation should be reasonable.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.550/- (five hundred and fifty only) paid by the complainant towards the test fee, and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand only) towards compensation. The Order shall be complied with in one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) : Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
APPENDIX:
Evidence of the complainant:
PW1 - Rajeevan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Scanning report dated 03.04.2010
Ext.A2 - Discharge summary dated 22.09.2009
Ext.A3 - Scanning report dated 29.10.2014
Ext.A4 - Scanning report dated 07.09.2009
Ext. A5 - Bill of Rs.550/- dated 29.10.2014
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Dr. Louis Thomas (Witness)
RW2 - Dr. Josey Varghese (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Review Article
//True copy// By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/opposite party/S/F
Typed by: Pj/-
Compd by :
