Kerala

Palakkad

CC/07/99

Shylaja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Pradeep M, Nuerologist, Palakkad - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Civil Station, Palakkad, Kerala Pin:678001 Tel : 0491-2505782
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/99

Shylaja
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Dr.Pradeep M, Nuerologist, Palakkad
The Managing Director
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K 2. Smt.Preetha.G.Nair 3. Smt.Seena.H

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD


 

Dated this the 20th day of May 2009.


 

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member)

C.C.No.99/2007


 

Shylaja

W/o. Muhammaed Kasim

Nellippadam

Vallangi

Nemmara (P.O)`

Palakkad - Complainant

(Party in person )

 

V/s


 

1. Dr. Pradeep.M.

Nuero Surgeon

Sreepradeep

Vinayaka Colony

Tharekkad

Palakkad

(Adv P.B. Menon & M. Jayaraj)

 

2. Managing Director

Welcare Hospital

Near Mercy College

Palakkad - Opposite Parties

( Adv . P.B. Menon & M. Jayaraj)


 

O R D E R

By Smt. H. Seena, President

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows.

Complainant approached Ist Opposite party for treatment of back pain on 14/05/2007. As adviced by Ist Opposite party , she was admitted in 2nd Opposite party hospital on 11/06/2007. On that day itself, medicines and treatment were started. For the purpose of giving injection butterfly was fixed and injection was given through that. After two days complainant felt pain on the spot where butterfly was fixed. On 13/06/2007 itself it was informed to the Ist Opposite party as well as the attending nurse. Ist Opposite party consoled the complainant stating it is usual and there is nothing to be afraid of. On 15/06/2007, complainant felt severe pain, fever and swelling on the arm. Complainant forced the attending nurse to remove the butterfly and the same was removed. Even then complainant was not relieved from pain. On 17/06/2007 ointment was applied as per the advice of the Ist Opposite party. Complainant was discharged on 21/06/2007 as her back pain

- 2 -

was some what relieved. She was again hospitalised on 24/06/2007 as she felt severe pain and swelling on the right arm. Antibiotic treatment was started. She was referred to a surgeon. X-ray was taken. Doctor prescribed medicine for 14 days and adviced surgery if not recovered. With this advice she was discharged. After the said period she again consulted the same doctor as she was not relieved from pain. Again doctor adviced medicines. On 17/07/2007 because of severe pain, complainant contacted Ist opposite party on telephone. Ist Opposite party behaved very rudely to the complainant. On the next day, complainant consulted another doctor of the 2nd opposite party hospital. The said doctor advised to take MRI scan and meet him at Karuna Hospital, Vilayodi. As the pain was unbearable she went to the nearby Thrissur Jubilee Mission Hospital. Next day itself surgery was conducted. She was discharged after 6 days completely recovered.


 

According to the complainant the act of the Ist Opposite party in not removing the butterfly fixed in time has resulted in much hardship pain and financial loss to the complainant. The act amounts to deficiency in service on the part of both Opposite parties. Complainant claims an amount of Rs.12,894/- being the hospital expenses together with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings of the complainant.


 

Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. Opposite parties admits that complainant was treated by Ist Opposite party for back pain and some complications has developed due to the fixation of butterfly for taking injection. According to Ist Opposite party, it is usual that some patients often develops swelling in such cases. But it will subside within a few weeks. In the medical circle, it is a well know complication of intravenous injection. Tests were conducted free of cost and the reason for swelling was found to be oozing of intravenous fluids. Ist Opposite party has adviced the complainant to consult a surgeon. After that she was under his treatment. Thereafter what happened was not within the knowledge of the Ist Opposite party. According to opposite parties complaint is liable to be dismissed.


 

Complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavit. Exhibit A1 to A8 series marked.


 

Issues for consideration are

  1. Whether the act of the Opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service?

  2. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?

Issue No.1

It is an admitted fact that complainant has developed complication after the fixation of the

- 3 -

butterfly. But according to Ist Opposite party , such complications are not due to the fault of the

Ist Opposite party or due to handling by inexperienced nurses. Some patients often develops swelling and that will subside within few weeks. Ist Opposite party has referred the patient to a surgeon and thereafter she was under her treatment and Ist opposite party has no knowledge about the after events. Complainant also admit the stand of Ist Opposite party that in some patients such complication may arise. But according to the complainant, the act of Ist opposite party in not advising to remove the butterfly fixed even after the complainant informed him about the severe pain and swelling amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has examined the Doctor who has examined and advised surgery at the Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur. As per the deposition, PW1 has stated that taking injection by fixing butterfly may cause swelling and that may result in inflamation. A definite question was put towards PW1 which is as follows.


 

Q. kqNn \n¶XpsIm­ mtWm ]gp¸v h¶Xv?


 

A. Bbncn¡mw. definite Bbn«v ]dbm³ km[n¡nÃ.

While cross examining counsel for opposite parties has enquired the reasons for swelling and whether swelling is common in cases in which injection is taken by fixing butterfly. PW1 has deposed that among other reasons Thrombo Phleditis (( Rc¼n Cs©£³ FSp¯Xn\p tijap­ mIp¶ \oÀs¡«v) is also a reason for swelling and swelling is not common in such cases and it is a complication.

 

Even though PW1 has not specifically stated that complication has been developed because of the negligence of Ist Opposite party, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, it is definite that swelling has caused because of not removing the needle in time which has resulted in such complication .


 

In view of the above discussions we are of the view that the act of Ist Opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and 2nd opposite party is also vicariously liable for the act of Ist Opposite party .

Issue No.2


 

Complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.12,894/- being the hospital expenses and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical sufferings. Complainant has produced hospital bills for the period in which she was hospitalised. Complainant was admitted for treatment not only

- 4 -

for swelling and pain but also for back pain. So it is not justifiable to claim the whole amount. We are of the view that a consolidated amount of Rs.20,000/- will meet the ends of justice.


 

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party together with Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Pronounced in the open court on the 20th day of May 2009

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

PW1 – Dr. M.L. Dathan, Jubilee Mission Medical College, Thrissur dated 29.04.2008

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

  1. Ext. A1 series– Haemogram Report dated 14/05/2007

  2. Ext. A2 series- Medical Bills of Welcare Medicals, Near Mercy College, dated21/06/2007

  3. Ext A3 - Discharge summary of Welcare Hospital dated 01/07/2007

4. Ext A4 series- Medical bills of Welcare Medicals dated 14/07/2007

5. Ext. A5 – Prescription of Dr. Reghu Shankar of Welcare Hospital dated 18/07/2007

6. Ext. A6 - Prescription of Dr.A. Abdul Jaleel.M.S of Karuna Medical College dated 19/07/2007

7. Ext. A 7 series – Medical bill and discharge summary of Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur,

8. Ext. A8 – Medical bills of Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Cost (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings)


 

Forwarded/By Order


 


 

Senior Superintendent




......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H