Date of Filing : 12.07.2019
Date of Disposal : 09.12.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.30/2019
THIS FRIDAY, THE 09thDAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Mr.S.Ravichandran, S/o.Subramaniyan,
No.19,Laxmipuram Street,
Near Head Post Office,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
Dr.M.Vinoth Kumar,
Owner of the Saviour Hospital,
No.15, V.K.N.Nagar,
Chinna Ikkadu,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District. …..opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.P.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 02.12.2022 in the presence of M/s.P.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate counsel for the complainant and the opposite party was set exparte for non filing of written version within the mandatory period and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence against the Doctor along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards surgery expenses and financial loss to the complainant and Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and physical strain and loss of future for wrong surgery made by the opposite party along with cost of the proceedings.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
As the complainant’s son minor aged about 16 years got severe pain on the right side abdomen area, the complainant approached the opposite party who examined the patient and told him that his son was affected with acute appendicitis problem and that it must be operated. As it was suggested by the opposite party that only surgery was the remedy and as the opposite party suggested for laparoscopic surgery which was agreed by the complainant, the surgery was done on the same day and complainant’s son was discharged from the hospital on 04.02.2019. But the complainant’s son got severe pain in the surgical area and when the opposite party was contacted he assured that the problem would be rectified within one or two days. But as the complainant’s son suffered for more than 20 days with severe pain in the surgical area continuously with nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, fever, painful defection with abdomen pain, the complainant approached one Dr.Syed F.Munavar who advised to get treatment in Billroth hospital. On 20.02.2019 the complainant admitted his son at Billroth hospital, after seeing the critical condition that the surgical area was infected severely another surgery was done in Billroth hospital and the patient was discharged on 02.03.2019. Due to negligent act of the opposite party the complainant son‘s life has became abnormal and also the complainant though spent Rs.40,000/- in the opposite party’s hospital was made to spend Rs.3,00,000/- in the Billroth hospital to save the life of his son. Due to the negligent act by the opposite party the complainant lost two months earning and also sustained mental torture and physical strain. Thus alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A10 on their side. Though the opposite party filed Vakalath he did not choose to file any written version within the mandatory period and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 04.12.2019.
Points for consideration:
Whether the alleged medical negligence against the opposite party/Doctor in conducting the acute appendicitis operation for the complainant’s son resulting in deficiency in service has been successfully proved by him by admissible evidence?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Histopathology Report issued by the opposite party dated 11.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;
Ashwin Diagnostic Center report dated 15.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
Saviour hospital medical prescription dated 13.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
Saviour hospital Discharge Summary dated 04.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;
Billroth hospital medical expenses bill dated 03.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;
Billroth hospital Discharge Summary dated 02.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;
Multi Slice CT-Abdomen report was marked as Ex.A7;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 04.06.2019 was marked as Ex.A8;
Reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 24.06.2019 was marked as Ex.A9;
Bona fide certificate of the complainant’s son was marked as Ex.A10;
Heard oral arguments adduced by complainant and perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by him.
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that the complainant’s 16 year old minor son suffered with severe pain in right side abdomen area for which he took treatment from the opposite party. The opposite party told before surgery that he was a Professor in the Government Medical College as a Senior Doctor and also expert in the appendicitis surgery. Laparoscopy surgery was done to the complainant’s son and after his discharge, he experienced severe abdominal pain along with nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, fever and painful defection. The complainant’s son again under went surgery in the Billroth hospital and the complainant spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the surgery. The complainant’s counsel argued that due to the negligent surgery performed by the opposite party the surgery area of the complainant’s son got severely infected for which he was forced to undergo another surgery in Billroth hospital. Thus he prayed for the complaint to be allowed.
The complainant had filed Ex.A1 Histopathology Report issued on 11.02.2019, the said report shows that the complainant’s son was suffering with reactive lymphoid hyperplasia of appendix. The report issued by Ashwin Diagnostic Center Saviour Hospital was marked as Ex.A2. The Medical prescription issued by the opposite party’s hospital dated 13.02.2019 was submitted as document No.Ex.A3. The Discharge Summary issued by the opposite party dated 04.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A4 in which under procedure done it was given as “EMERGERCY LAY APPENDICECTOMY DONE GA.”. The Discharge Summary issued by the Billroth hospital dated 02.03.2019 was submitted by the complainant in proof of the subsequent surgery done to the complainant’s son which was marked as ExA6. In the Discharge Summary the Diagnosis was mentioned as POST APPENDICECTOMY (ELSEWHERE) INTRA ABDOMINAL ABSCESS AND ADHESION and the operative procedure was mentioned as LAPAROTOMY-ADHESIOLYSIS, ABSCESS DRAINAGE, and DEBRIDEMENT UNDER GA DONE 22.02.2019. Further the Complaint was provided as “Patient complaints of Right lower abdomen pain since 20 days, nausea, vomiting on and off, loss of appetite, fever, painful defecation, burning micturition, weight loss (10kg loss within 20 days). History of appendectomy 20 days back. Hence he got admitted under Dr.Sivaraj for further evaluation and management”. Under the operation notes it has been stated that
“500ml intra abdominal abscess pelvic cavity, Right iliac fossa and supra pubic region.
Adhesion of the distal ileum to the abscess cavity and obstruction.
As per the Discharge Summary procedure done was laparotomy the abscess cavity drained. Debridement done. The right colon proximal 1/3mobilised. Appendicular stump intact. Right pericolic and pelvic necrotic material found. Debrided. Wash given after adhesiolysis done”.
Further the CT scan report dated 01.02.2019 and the Multi Slice CT-Abdomen (Screening) report was marked as Ex.A7 which was taken before the surgery with the opposite party’s hospital. The legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party was marked as Ex.A8 and the reply notice given by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A9. In the reply notice the opposite party had denied the allegations stating that he was not aware of what has happened after discharge of the complainant’s son from the hospital and he has not committed any negligence.
Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 proves that the complainant’s son suffered with abdominal pain and got treatment under the opposite party’s hospital for nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, fever and painful defecation. It is also seen that on 20.02.2019 nearly after 16 days of discharge from the opposite party’s hospital the complainant’s son got admitted in Billroth hospital for complaints of Right lower abdomen pain since 20 days, nausea, vomiting on and off, loss of appetite, fever, painful defecation, burning micturition, weight loss (10kg loss within 20 days). History of appendectomy 20 days back as per records of Bilroth Hosptal. The said document i.e. Ex.A6 stated that though the complainant’s son underwent laparotomy surgery for appendicitis problem with the opposite party had developed abdominal pain. It is the case of the opposite party in the reply notice issued that after the discharge of complainant’s son, on 10.02.2019 the sutures were removed and no infection was found at the time as alleged by the complainant. However, the opposite party failed to appear and submit any evidence in proof of the same. In the absence of any material evidence the above said contention could not be accepted by this commission. In the absence of any material evidence we could presume that the opposite party failed to diagnosis the post operative infection in the surgery site of the complainant’s son. Our view is supported by the pleadings submitted by the complainant that post operative surgery they consulted the opposite party with complaints of severe pain in the surgical area for which the opposite party responded that problem could be rectified within one or two days but had not prescribed any for the same. It is clearly provided under the Discharge Summary issued by the Billroth hospital that “the abscess cavity drained, Debridement done, the right colon proximal 1/3mobilised, Appendicular stump intact, Right pericolic and pelvic necrotic material found. Debrided. Wash given after adhesiolysis done“ which shows that due to the negligent procedure and importantly due to lack of post operative care by the opposite party the complainant’s son had developed severe complications resulting in further surgery. It is also to be notied that the complainant’s son developed such complication only after the surgery performed by the opposite party. In such circumstances we could safely hold that the opposite party had committed negligence in the performance of surgery and in post operative care resulting in deficiency in service on their part. Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the complainant has successfully proved that the opposite party committed deficiency in service by admissable pleadings and evidences.
Point No.2:
With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant we could see that the complainant was made to spend around Rs.1,99,617.12/- in the Billroth hospital for the subsequent surgery and treatment for his son which is evident by Ex.A5 issued by the Bilhroth hospital for the complainant’s son name R. Manoj, ID No.70041433 which document/evidence was not denied by the opposite party by producing any contra evidence. Hence we award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the opposite party towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service committed by opposite party and we also award Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing him
a) to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- Rupees two lakhs only) towards medical expenses spent by the complainant;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate 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 09th day of December 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 11.02.2019 Histopothology report. Xerox
Ex.A2 15.02.2019 Ashwin Diagnostic center report. Xerox
Ex.A3 13.02.2019 Saviour hospital medical prescription. Xerox
Ex.A4 04.02.2019 Saviour hospital discharge summary. Xerox
Ex.A5 03.03.2019 Billroth hospital Medical expenses bill Xerox
Ex.A6 02.03.2019 Billroth hospital discharge summary. Xerox
Ex.A7 ............... Multi slice CT-Abdomen(Screening) Xerox
Ex.A8 04.06.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A9 24.06.2019 Reply notice Xerox
Ex.A10 ............... Bonafide certificate. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties;
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
