Date of Filing : 22.09.2021
Date of Disposal: 30.09.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.42/2021
THIS FRIDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Mrs.A.Radha,
No.83, Munesiswaran Kovil Street,
Selvi Nagar, Avadi to Redhills Road,
Kattur, Chennai – 600 062. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
Dr.M.Ramesh, M.D., (Cell) AAT,
No.3/63, Easwaran Kovil Street,
Lakshmipuram, Redhills, Chennai -600 052. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mrs.K.Kalpana, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : M/s. L.Prabhakaran, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 29.09.2022 in the presence of Mrs.K.Kalpana, Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s. L.Prabhakaran, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in giving certain medication to the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.4500/- towards medical expenses with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- towards other hospitalization charges and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of earning to the complainant
Sum and substance of the complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that in April 2018 she suffered severe Lower Back Pain and had approached the opposite party who advised some medicine and the same was injected to the complainant. The medicine which was injected has not been diluted in her body rather it was in solid state and when enquired with the opposite party he said some lame reasons. Day by day the injected area became serious and turned into abscess and when the complainant approached the opposite party he shouted in filthy language and after a prolong treatment the complainant approached Sri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, ESSVEE hospital, Ambattur and Care and Cure clinic for her treatment and in Care and Cure Clinic Dr.V.R.Raghul done a minor surgery with 21 stitches. Though several complaints were made by the complainant to the State Medical Council and other concerned authorities and the police no action was taken against the opposite party. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the complainant had preferred the present complaint for the following reliefs alleging negligence and deficiency in service.
to refund a sum of Rs.4500/- towards medical expenses with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realization;
to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- towards other hospitalization charges;
to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party;
to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of earning to the complainant;
Defence of the opposite party:
The opposite party submitted that he knows the complainant as she came to him for Ayurveda treatment (Celltheraphy) in Lavanya Celltheraphy clinic. It was submitted that the opposite party has Alternative Medicines Course completion in Indian Celltheraphy Institute at Madurai affiliated to Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Tamilnadu Government Reg.No.159/2007. It was submitted that the complainant had filed a criminal complaint against him only to grab money. When the opposite party appeared and explained with supporting documents like course certificate, that he was practice Ayurveda medicine under the guidelines of celltheraphy for various human diseases the complaint was closed. It was submitted that the police was having no right to prevent the practitioner from practicing the alternative system of medicine as per the direction passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Crl.Op.(M.D.)No.8085/2007 dated 09.08.2007 and also as per another similar order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in W.P.(M.D) No.2450/2010 dated 25.03.2010. It was submitted that the celltherapy encourages establishing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle suitable for a particular body condition. Thus stating that he was a BSS Master Diploma in celltherapy from the Indian Cell Therapy Institute at Madurai sought for the dismissal of the complaint stating that he has not committed any negligence or deficiency in service.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to B5 were marked.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the alleged negligence and deficiency in service committed by the opposite party in the treatment given to the complainant resulting in a minor surgery to the complainant has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1
On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations;
Prescription of Dr. M. Ramesh dated 16.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;
Medical Reports of Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute dated 04.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital medical Reports dated 21.05.2019 were marked as Ex.A3;
Prescription of Dr.V.R.Raghul was marked as Ex.A4;
Legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 09.11.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;
Reply notice sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated 30.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;
Order copy of CLR.O.P.No.18729/2020 dated 18.01.2021 was marked as Ex.A7;
Complaint written by the complainant to the State Medical Council, Tamilnadu dated 26.07.2021 was marked as Ex.A8;
Photo of wound was marked as Ex.A9;
On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their defence;
Celltheraphy course completion certificate was marked as Ex.B1;
Written statement of the complainant dated 18.09.2021 was marked as Ex.B2;
Hon’ble High Court order copy in CRL.O.P.No.18729/2020 dated 18.01.2021 was marked as Ex.B3;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 18.12.2019 was marked as Ex.B4;
Reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 30.12.2019 was marked as Ex.B5;
The crux of the arguments adduced by the complainant is that she had been prescribed Moxin clax 625 by the opposite party when she approached him on 16.04.2018 and also got injected a medicine in left buttock (gluteal region) through syringe and she had spent Rs.1500/-. On the same day during night the complainant felt solid state of medicine which was not dissolved in her buttock with unbearable pain. Specifically she got fever and vomiting sensation and head ache due to the unbearable pain in the place of injection. When the complainant approached the opposite party for the pain she was advised that the pain will reduce by giving some medicines. After which the complainant approached several hospitals and finally in Care and Cure Hospital she was made to undergo a minor surgery with 21 stitches, after which she was made to go to Rajiv Gandhi General Government Hospital due to lack of money. It is argued that the opposite party had given Moxin clax 625 tablets which is an English medicine and hence the opposite party being Ayurveda Doctor was not entitled to prescribe the same. Thus submitting that due to illegal medical procedure adopted by the opposite party the complainant had became partially disabled. Thus the learned counsel appearing for the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that the opposite party was practicing celltheraphy after obtaining Registration No.159/2007. It was submitted that the complainant took only one day treatment with the opposite party for which celltheraphy medicines were prescribed by him. Further he argued that Ex.A1 was a concocted one and also the date of treatment in Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute was 04.03.2019 wherein the complainant took treatment with the opposite party on only in the month of April 2018 and therefore what happened in between the time was not properly explained by the complainant. He further argued that no proper dates on which treatment was given in Care and Cure Hospital was given, sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
We perused the documents and pleadings submitted by the both parties. It is the specific case of the complainant that she approached the opposite party for lower back pain for which a medicine Moxin clax 625 tablets along with an injection was prescribed by the opposite party and that the injected site turned into an abscess for which she has to undergo treatment for more than one year in several hospital and also finally a minor surgery at Care and Cure clinic by Dr.V.R.Raghul. Though it was submitted by the opposite party that the prescription (Ex.A1) is a concocted one we could find with naked eyes that it is an original prescription issued by the opposite party containing the particulars of the patient’s name, date and most importantly the particulars of the registration of the opposite party as a registered medical practitioner and Celltheraphy Consultant. Hence the document cannot be held to be a forged or concocted one. Further on going through the medical report issued by Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute which runs to pages we could see that the complainant had undergone treatment for gluteal sinus. As per the physical findings found in Ex.A2 it is provided as follows “45 years female no known co-morbid illness presented with complaint if pain at left gluteal region for one year, H/o I M injection, No H/o trauma, No H/o fever”. Further in the operation notes it is seen that the injection was made around the sinos and deepened. The prescription given in the Care and Cure clinic (Ex.A4) shows that the complainant took treatment for let gluteal abscess. Thus it is well established that the injected site developed into abscess which is medically termed as left gluteal abscess. It is also seen in the medical report that the complainant had undergone injection and drainage for removal of the abscess. Apart from the discussion as to whether the opposite party could prescribe Ayurveda medicine being a Celltheraphist and coming to a finding about the bar of practicing the same it is amply proved by documents including the photograph that the injection was not properly injected. It may due to wrong medication or wrong administration. It is seen that the complainant had suffered due to the injection and medication she had undergone from the opposite party. In such circumstances we hold that the opposite party had committed negligence in treating the complainant and failed to provide the standard required skill to the complainant resulting in deficiency in service which caused damage resulting and suffering to the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:
With regard to relief to be granted to the complainant the complainant had prayed for refund all the medical expenses with 12% interest along with a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.4,00,000/-towards loss of earning. However, in the facts and circumstances we feel it is appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and also we order Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as no proof was submitted towards loss of earning etc.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party
a) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
c) Amount in clause (a) to be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which an interest of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30th day of September 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 16.04.2018 Prescription of Dr.M.Ramesh. Xerox
Ex.A2 04.03.2019 Medical Reports Of Shri Sathya Sai Medical College And Research Institute. Xerox
Ex.A3 21.05.2019 Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital Medical Reports. Xerox
Ex.A4 .............. Prescription of Dr.V.R.Raghul. Xerox
Ex.A5 09.11.2019 Legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A6 30.12.2019 Reply notice sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 18.01.2021 Order Copy of CRL.O.P.No.18729/2020. Xerox
Ex.A8 26.07.2021 Complaint to the state Medical Council. Xerox
Ex.A9 ............. Photos. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ………… Celltheraphy course completion certificate. Xerox
Ex.B2 18.09.2021 Written statement of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B3 18.01.2021 Order Copy of CRL.O.P.No.18729/2020 Xerox
Ex.B4 18.12.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B5 30.12.2019 Reply notice sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
