SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and for getting compensation for physical and mental agonies caused due to the negligence in the treatment. The complaint is as follows:- The complainant, an ex-service man met with an accident on 8.10.2005 and he was taken the St. Thomas Mission Hospital, Kattanam, due to severe pain on the side of the thigh of the left leg; and he was undergone for a thorough check up. On examination by scanning it was found that there was a Haematoma (blood clotting) on the said portion and the doctor advised the complainant for a surgery. Accordingly on 10.10.2005 the Surgeon removed the Haematoma. After that the complainant was discharged. He has remitted a sum of Rs.600/- for the said treatment. Since there was no relief of pain on the affected part, complainant again contacted the same doctor in the said Hospital and as per advice of the doctor, the complainant was admitted in the Hospital as inpatient on 14.10.05 . The complainant was against undergone to a surgery on the same spot of surgery earlier conducted, extending to a measure of ½ “ length. Since there was no positive result of pain, he was forcefully discharged on 16.10.2005. At the time of discharge complainant was entrusted with a bill for Rs.4414/- for payment. The bill amount was exorbitant and is in excess of the service rendered by the Hospital. Since the amount was very high the complainant contacted the opposite parties 2 and 3. The 2nd opposite party shouted and pulled out from the room. After that the complainant had filed a petition before the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Mavelikara as PLP 15/06 for relief. But due to the non-compliance of the opposite parties, Legal Service Committee directed the complainant to approach competent Forum for getting his grievances redressed. Hence this complaint.<br /> 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and they entered appearance this Forum and filed version. The opposite parties filed 3 documents in evidence and marked as Exts.B1 to B3. On the side of the complainant he was filed 11 documents in evidence and marked as Exts. A1 to A11. <br /> 3. In the version of the first opposite party it is stated that he is a consultant Surgeon working in the said Hospital. On 10.10.05, he was examined the complainant who came to the Hospital. It was noticed that the patient was suffering of pain and swelling of the left thigh following a fall from a two wheeler two days before and that he was known diabetic and hypertensive on treatment. Further it was noticed that there was a firm consistent swelling of the upper lateral aspect of the left thigh, which was tender. Ultrasonogram was advised which was reported as haematoma or accumulation of blood. It is further stated that the 1st opposite party informed the complainant regarding the haematoma and its treatment which is evacuation of the clotted blood and evacuation was done under local anesthesia on 10.10.05 itself. Plenty of clots were removed and the area was packed with gauze. After giving necessary medication the complainant was asked to report for review after 2 days. As such he was reported and after cleaning and dressing was doing the complainant was advised to contact 2 days later. On 14.10.05 necessary medication was given when he present. At that time it was noticed that there was against swelling on the thigh, which shows the reaccumulation of blood. So the first opposite party directed to drain the clots under general anesthesia, because it required greater exposure. As such the complainant was admitted on 14.10.05 for draining of the haematoma under general anesthesia. Since there is risk involved, the doctor explained to the relatives and consent was obtained. After the operation, the patient being continuously monitored. Since the pain and swelling had subsided, the complainant was discharged on 16.10.05 at his request. The version further reveals that in view of the above mentioned facts there is no negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party and not liable for compensation. The version of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are in support of the version of the first opposite party and denied all the allegations leveled against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. It is further shows that the fee charged by the hospital authorities are reasonable and they charged a less fee compared to other hospital; since the hospital is in the status of a mission hospital. It is stated that the complainant has not contacted the 2nd opposite party regarding the matter before the Taluk legal service authorities. The complainant was solely responsible for the dereliction for taking proper treatment at the time of accident and second and third opposite parties are not liable for any of the relief claimed by the complainant.<br /> 3. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the issues:- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for awarding compensation and costs. <br /> 4. The documents given in evidence by the complainant – Ext.A1 is the discharge card shows the details of clinical examination and treatment advised at the time of discharge. Ext.A2 is the details of treatment of Dr.Philip Varghese M.D. Ext.A3 and A4 series are the bill showing the payment for medicine and allied items. Ext.A5 is the bill dt. 17.10.05 showing the remittance of Rs.4344/-. Ext.A6 is the cash receipt for the above said amounts. Ext.A7 is the representation given to the Bishop by the complainant stating the incidence. Ext.A8 is the letter dt. 14.12.05 sent by the Bishop to the complainant. Ext.A9 is the representation of the complainant to the Hospital Administrator. Ext.A10 is the order of the Taluk Legal Service Authorities. Ext.A11 series are the bills showing the payment. The documents given, the evidence by the opposite parties – Ext.B1 is petition of the complainant before the Taluk Legal Service Authorities. Ext.B2 is the inpatient charge in request of the complainant. It shows the details of medicine applied the nature of the health condition etc. The chart reveals the details of medicines. While in box the complainant has stated that “\n§Ä¡v Haematoma F tcmK-am-sW-pw, AtX-¡p-dn¨v tUmIvSÀ Fs´-¦nepw ]d-ªn-cp-tm? (Q) ]d-ªn-cp-p. (A) …….\n§Ä¡v acp-pIÄ Xo«pw normal value-t\¡mÄ pressure-Dw sugar-Dw D­m-bn-cp-p-shv medical record sIm­p ImWp-p. (Q) Ah-cpsS record-  D­m-bn-cn-¡mw.(A) Operation-\p tijw discharge hm§n-b-Xn\p tijhpw ]e {]mhiyw dress sN¿m\pw follow up-\pw th­n sNn-cptm (Q) sNn-cp-p. (A) AXn\p tijw administrative officer- ambn hm¡p XÀ¡w D­mbn (Q) ]cmXn sImSp-¡m³ t]mbn hm¡p XÀ¡w Bbn (A) ……t]mbn tPmen t\m¡m³ At±lw ]d-ªp. acymZbmbn Hcp hm¡p ]d-ªmepw aXn-bm-bn-cp-p. From the above statements of the complainant it can be seen that the filing of this complaint is the out come of personal grudge against the administrator. On a detailed study of the documents, adduced by the complainant and depositions, it can be seen that the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties cannot be sustained and without any bonafides. The rates quoted by the Hospital authorities are solely on the basis of price of the medicine and service charges. The alleged amounts are not at all exorbitant when we consider the details of operation and other service charges rendered. The evidence given by the opposite parties clearly shows that there is no negligence or dereliction of duty on their part and they have shown maximum effort to rectify the pain by effecting second minor operation in good faith. Without ignoring these types of services the complainant has filed the complaint without a valid ground before this Forum against the opposite parties and it was only on the basis of alleged shouting by the administrator against the complainant. It is to be noted that the filing of the complaint is the result of personal animosity against the administrator and not against the bill amount or medical negligence. Considering the complaint, affidavit and objection filed by the parties and documents given in evidence and after a detailed hearing, we are of the view that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties in treating the complainant. The issue is <br /> In the result, we are of the view that complaint has no merit and so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence the complaint is dismissed. Since there is no bonafides in raising the complaint to a reputed hospital and the complaint is frivolous and vexatious, we direct the complainant to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the opposite parties. We further direct the complainant to pay the costs to the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> Complaint is dismissed with costs.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2008.<br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN :<br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH :<br /> Sd/- SRI. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI:<br /> APPENDIX:-<br /> <br /> PW1 - S.Thomas (Witness)<br /> PW2 - D.P.K. Philip Varghese (Witness)<br /> Ext.A1 - Discharge Card<br /> Ext.A2 - Letter dated 10.10.2005<br /> Ext.A3 series - Prescriptions (8 Nos.)<br /> Ext.A4 - Receipt for Rs.600/-<br /> Ext.A5 - Receipt for Rs.4344/-<br /> Ext.A6 - Intimation<br /> Ext.A7 - Photo copy of the letter from the complainant to the opposite party<br /> Ext.A8 - Letter dated 14.12.2005<br /> Ext.A9 - Letter dated 26.10.2005<br /> Ext.A10 - Proceedings of the Taluk Legal Committee, Mavelikara<br /> Ext.A11 series - Receipts (3 Nos.) <br /> EvideEnce of the opposite parties:- <br /> Ext.B1 - Notice and complaint<br /> Ext.B2 - Inpatient record<br /> Ext.B3 - Out patient record<br /> // True Copy //<br /> By Order<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainant/Oppo. Parties/S.F.<br /> Typed by:- pr/-<br /> Compared by:-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />