IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2014
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.96/2013 (Filed on 08.07.2013)
Between:
Mammen. K.I., aged 64,
Korchineth House (Kottoorethu),
Budhannur. P.O.,
Chengannur Taluk,
Alappuzha Dist. ….. Complainant
(By Adv. B. Santhosh kumar)
And:
1. Dr. Mathews John,
Surgeon,
Lifeline Super Speciality Hospital,
P.B.No.46, Meloor.P.O.,
Adoor Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist – 691 523.
2. The Executive Director,
Lifeline Super Speciality Hospital,
P.B.No.46, Meloor.P.O.,
Adoor Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist – 691 523. ….. Opposite parties
(By Adv. P.K. Mathew)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant is a retired A/C Mechanic. He was suffering from Hernia and for its treatment he approached the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party is the hospital, where the complainant was treated and 1st opposite party is the doctor who treated the complainant. On 28.07.2012, complainant was admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital and a keyhole surgery was conducted on the same day itself by the 1st opposite party. On 29.07.2012 he was discharged and advised to take rest. After 4 days from the discharge, the petitioner suffered very serious pain over the lower part of the abdomen and the right leg. Complainant consulted the 1st opposite party and outpatient treatment continued for few days. On 06.08.2012 the pain was aggravated and the complainant was again admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital. Even after detailed check up, 1st opposite party was unable to diagnose the reason for the severe pain. Hence on 08.08.2012 1st opposite party referred the complainant to Ortho surgeon.
3. Complainant approached St. Gregorious Mission Hospital, Parumala and there he was admitted and treatment continued. For better treatment as per the request of the complainant the hospital authorities discharged the complainant and the complainant came to Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry and got admitted there. As per the guidance of Dr. Cherian Mathew of Muthoot Hospital the treatment continued from 12.08.2012 to 20.08.2012. Complainant’s condition improved but not cured completely. Hence he is again referred for expert management.
4. Thereafter, complainant got admitted at Lake Shore Hospital, Kochi for expert management and he is still continuing his treatment. The doctors at Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry and Lake Shore Hospital, Kochi diagnosed that the severe pain was developed due to the infection after the keyhole surgery conducted by the 1st opposite party and due to the 1st opposite party’s negligence and careless act, which he has failed to remove the blood oozed at the time of surgery and the said blood and pus were allowed to accumulate in the right inguinal region which resulted in developing serious bacterial infection to the complainant. It was caused only due to the negligent act of the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party has not taken due care which is expected from a normal doctor.
5. Complainant has to spent about 2 lakhs for his further treatment for the diseases developed after the surgery conducted by the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party is vicariously liable for the negligent act of the 1st opposite party. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting Rs.6 lakhs as the medical expenses under various heads including the treatment expenses and compensation for pain and suffering and the losses due to his permanent disability.
6. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed a common version with the following main contentions. Opposite parties admitted that complainant had consulted the 1st opposite party, in the 2nd opposite party hospital and diagnosed the disease and he was advised to undergo laparoscopic hernia on 28.07.2012. Before the surgery 1st opposite party discussed with the complainant and his bystanders about the pros and cons of the laparoscopic hernia repair under general anesthesia and the risk factors involved in the procedure. Complainant and his relatives consented for surgery. With all aseptic care and precautious and under strict sterile condition, the 1st opposite party conducted the surgery. He was discharged on 29.07.2012 with post operative instructions and medication and advised for follow up after 5 days.
7. On 04.08.2012, complainant approached with pain in the leg. On examination there was no signs of infection and there was no specific reason for pain and he was advised symptomatic treatment with analgesics and supportive medicines. He again came up for review on 06.08.2012 with complaint of pain and he was admitted for further investigation. Complainant underwent x-ray and USG examination. X-ray findings were normal and USG revealed small focal collection in the inguinal region which was not significant. But in spite of conservative management pain did not relieved. Hence the complainant was referred to orthopedic surgeon for further management. All procedures done were under accepted medical protocol and there was no negligence, carelessness or shortcoming on the part of the opposite parties.
8. When the complainant reported back with pain, the 1st opposite party had conducted the required investigations and conservative management was advised on the basis of well justified clinical judgment as per investigation and that he did not develop any complication other than small collection of serum. The serum will usually resolve after 4-6 weeks and further intervention through needle aspiration is indicated only if the same is not absorbed by itself within one month. Complainant was thoroughly investigated in the post operative review and no prima facie evidence of persisting pain was traceable from investigation report except presence of seroma and hence reference was made to orthopedic surgeon with a bonafide intention to rule out any orthopedic cause for the persisting pain.
9. Opposite parties are not aware of any of his subsequent treatments claimed to be availed in Parumala Hospital, Muthoot Hospital and Lakeshore Hospital and other tests done there. Complainant has to prove such things with required medical evidence and other supporting documents. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Surgery was conducted with care and caution. All procedures followed were widely accepted by medical fraternity. Claim of compensation is highly exorbitant and not supported with any documentary evidence. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as they have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service in the treatment of the complainant.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
11. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW’s 1 to 3, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A19 and Ext.B1. After closure of evidence, complainant’s counsel filed an argument note and both sides were heard.
12. The Point:- Complainant’s case is that he is suffering from Hernia and for its treatment he approached the opposite parties. 1st opposite party conducted keyhole surgery on 28.07.2012 and discharged on 29.07.2012. After that he suffered severe pain over the lower part of the abdomen and the right leg and he consulted 1st opposite party and undergone treatment for few days as outpatient. Thereafter he was admitted on 06.08.2012 as the pain was increased and continued treatment till 08.08.2012. During that period various checkups were done. Later he was referred to some ortho surgeon. For diagnosing the reason for the pain he was admitted and treated at St. Gregorious Hospital, Parumala, Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry and finally at Lakeshore Hosptial, Kochi. The doctors diagnosed that the severe pain was developed due to the infection caused after the keyhole surgery conducted by the opposite parties. At the time of surgery, they have failed to remove the blood oozed during the surgery and the said blood and pus were allowed to accumulate in the right inguinal region, which resulted in developing an organized seroma to the complainant.
13. Complainant spent about 2 lakhs for further treatment for his ailments developed due to the negligent surgery conducted by the 1st opposite party. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
14. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with 19 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A19. Two doctors were also examined on the side of the complainant as PW2 and PW3. Ext.A1 is the O.P card issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the bills (5 in number) issued from 2nd opposite party. Ext.A3 is the reference letter issued by opposite parties to the complainant on 08.08.2012. Ext.A4 is the discharge card dated 12.08.2012 issued from St. Gregorious Mission Hospital, Parumala. Ext.A5 is the bills (8 in number) issued from St. Gregorious Mission Hospital. Ext.A6 is the bills (16 in number) issued from Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry. Ext.A7 is the ultrasonography report from Muthoot Hospital. Ext.A8 is the reference letter from Muthoot Hospital. Ext.A9 is the discharge summary dated 24.08.2012 issued from Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi. Ext.A10 is the bills (12 in number) issued from Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi. Ext.A11 is the discharge summary dated 10.09.2012 from Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi. Ext.A12 is the bills (13 in number) issued from Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi. Ext.A13 is the discharge summary dated 04.12.2012 issued from Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi. Ext.A14 is the bills (23 in number) issued from Lakeshore Hospital. Ext.A15 is the O.P (out patient) visit record from 22.11.2012 to 13.03.2013 issued from Lakeshore Hospital. Ext.A16 is the prescriptions (7 in number) issued from Lakeshore Hospital. Ext.A17 is the bills (13 in number) issued from Lakeshore Hospital. Ext.A18 is the whole body bone scinti imaging report dated 28.11.2012 issued from Gamma Imaging and Thyroid Centre, Kochi. Ext.A19 is the copy of legal notice dated 05.02.2013 issued by the complainant to opposite parties.
15. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that complainant got admitted at 2nd opposite party hospital on 28.07.2012 for the surgical treatment and the 1st opposite party discussed with the complainant and his bystanders about the pros and cons of the laparoscopic hernia and the risk factors involved in the procedure and the complainant and his relatives consented for surgery. With all ascetic care and precautions and under strict sterile condition, the 1st opposite party conducted laparoscopic hernia repair through total extra pre-peritoneal approach. When the complainant came with complaint of pain, he was admitted for further investigation. Complainant underwent x-ray and USG examination. X-ray findings were normal and USG revealed small focal collection in the inguinal region which was not significant. In spite of conservative management, pain did not relieve and hence the complainant was referred to orthopedic surgeon for further management. The surgical procedures and medical measures taken by the 1st opposite party in the management of the complainant was in strict regard to standard and accepted medical measures.
16. Subsequent treatment of the complainant after the discharge from the 2nd opposite party is not aware of the opposite parties. What all procedures and treatments given by the opposite parties are medically accepted and are warranted in the ailments of the complainant and thus opposite parties has not committed any negligence or deficiency in service in the treatment of the complainant.
17. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, 1st opposite party filed a proof affidavit and one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, 1st opposite party was examined as DW1 and the document is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the entire treatment records in respect of the treatment of the complainant in 2nd opposite party hospital.
18. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the treatment of the complainant. But the complainant alleges that opposite parties have committed negligence and deficiency in service in his treatment which caused complications. Because of the said complications, he was compelled to undergo treatments from St. Gregorious Hospital, Parumala, Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry and Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi and he had spent about 2 lakhs for the said treatments. But according to the opposite parties the treatments given to the complainant are medically accepted and warranted in the circumstances of the complainant’s ailment. The complainant’s complaint is pain, at lower part of the abdomen and right leg. Opposite parties exercised earnest efforts for finding out the cause of the alleged pain. But nothing had been diagnosed for the cause of the alleged pain and it is not connected with the hernia surgery. Therefore, the complainant was referred to an ortho surgeon as the alleged pain may be ortho related. Thereafter, the opposite parties are not aware of the further treatment of the complainant.
19. In this case, it is pertinent to note that the specific allegation of the complainant is that severe pain of the complainant is due to the infection caused to the complainant consequent to the keyhole surgery done by the 1st opposite party. But none of the doctors who treated the complainant subsequent to the discharge from the 2nd opposite party hospital has not adduced any evidence supporting the allegations of the complainant. None of the exhibits marked in favour of the complainant also does not reveals anything supportive of the complainant’s allegations. The oral evidence of PW2 and PW3, expert doctors who are connected with the subsequent treatment of the complainant, also is not supportive of the allegation of the complainant. The line of treatments and the medicines given to the complainant in his subsequent treatment also does not supports the complainant’s allegations. The complainant’s pain was due to the mild fluid collection and the said fluid collection is common in this type of surgeries. It is evident from the depositions of PW2 and PW3. PW2 and PW3 deposed that they could not find any negligence from the part of the opposite parties in the treatment of the complainant. In medical negligence cases, the opinions and evidences of expert doctors are much relevant particularly when such evidence are not challenged with other cogent evidence. In this case, evidence of PW2 and PW3 is not challenged by the complainant with cogent evidence. In the circumstances, we find that complainant has failed to prove his case against the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is not allowable as the opposite parties has not committed any deficiency or negligence in the treatment of the complainant as alleged by the complainant and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
20. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 9th day of January, 2014.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Mammen. K.I
PW2 : H. Ramesh
PW3 : Cherian Mathew
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : O.P card issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
A2 : Bills (5 in number) issued from 2nd opposite party.
A3 : Reference letter dated 08.08.2012 issued by opposite parties to the
complainant.
A4 : Discharge card dated 12.08.2012 issued by St. Gregorious Mission
Hospital, Parumala in the name of the complainant.
A5 : Bills (8 in number) issued by St. Gregorious Mission Hospital in the
name of the complainant.
A6 : Bills (16 in number) issued from Muthoot Medical Centre,
Kozhencherry in the name of the complainant.
A7 : Ultrasonography report dated 12.08.2012 issued from Muthoot
Medical Centre, Kozhencherry.
A8 : Reference letter dated 20.08.2012 issued by Muthoot Hospital to the
General Surgeon, AIMS, Kochi.
A9 : Discharge summary dated 24.08.2012 issued by Lakeshore Hospital,
Kochi.
A10 : Bills (12 in number) issued by Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi
A11 : Discharge summary dated 10.09.2012 issued by Lakeshore Hospital,
Kochi.
A12 : Bills (13 in number) issued by Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi.
A13 : Discharge summary dated 04.12.2012 issued by Lakeshore Hospital,
Kochi.
A14 : Bills (23 in number) issued by Lakeshore Hospital.
A15 : Out Patient visit record from 22.11.2012 to 13.03.2013 issued by
Lakeshore Hospital.
A16 : Prescriptions (7 in number) issued by Lakeshore Hospital.
A17 : Bills (13 in number) issued by Lakeshore Hospital.
A18 : Whole body bone scinti imaging report dated 28.11.2012 issued by
Gamma Imaging and Thyroid Centre, Kochi.
A19 : Copy of legal notice dated 05.02.2013 issued by the complainant to
opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Dr. Mathews John
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Treatment records of the complainant in 2nd opposite party hospital.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Mammen. K.I., Korchineth House (Kottoorethu),
Budhannur. P.O., Chengannur Taluk, Alappuzha Dist.
(2) Dr. Mathews John, Surgeon, Lifeline Super Speciality Hospital, P.B.No.46, Meloor.P.O., Adoor Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist – 691 523.
(3) The Executive Director, Lifeline Super Speciality Hospital,
P.B.No.46, Meloor.P.O., Adoor Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist – 691 523.
(4) The Stock File.
