Date of filing:09.09.2014
Date of order:17.10.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
MONDAY THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 42/2014
1. Thiru. Chakravarthy (died)
2. Tmt. Gajalakshmi
3. Mrs. Devi
4. Mrs. Saranya
5. Mr. Saravanan
Complainants 2 to 5 are
Residing at No.164, Gandhi Nagar,
8th Cross Street, Virupakshipuram,
Vellore. ...Complainants
-Vs-
1. Dr. Ramesh (M.B.B.S., M.S.),
A Consultant doctor at J.J. Ravi Hospital
Arni Main Road, (near) Anna Arch Bus Stop,
Vellore – 632 002.
Practicing as a surgeon at Government
Vellore Medical College & Hospital,
Adukambarai, Vellore District.
2. J.J. Ravi Hospital,
Rep. By Br. J.J. Ravindranath,
Arni Mai Road, (near) Anna Arch Bus Stop,
Vellore – 632 002. ...Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. G. Giridharan
Counsel for first opposite party : Tr.M.E.Ganapathy (Died)
Second opposite parties : Set exparte on 27.6.2017
Tr. Gowrishankar.
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties are jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.27,053/- towards the expense incurred by the complainant, and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the negligence, gross deficiency of service and also to pay Rs.25,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant visited the Government Medical College and Hospital, Vellore for pain in the groin area. The first opposite party examined the complainant and after diagnosis the complainant had complaint of ‘Right Inguinal Hernia and Left inguinal hernia. When he was patient at the government Medical College and Hospital, he was asked to take several tests and accordingly he had also taken tests. Based on the recommendation, on 04.11.2013 the Assistant Professor Government Medical College Hospital written a letter to anesthetist, Vellore regarding the fitness of the complainant. Accordingly on 07.11.2013 the anesthetist gave a letter regarding his fitness. The first opposite party on his investigation is not doing the surgery at the Government Medical College Hospital, Vellore. The complainant forced to get admitted in the second opposite party hospital were the first opposite party is the consultant. He was advised to take a scan of abdominal and scrotum by the first opposite party at Anand Ultra Scan Centre, Vellore. On seeing the scan report the first opposite party advised the complainant to get himself admitted on 13.11.2013 at second opposite party hospital and on 14.11.2013 he was underwent an operation for the aforesaid hernia. He was discharged from the hospital on 15.11.2013, he has made payment for the same. After the operation was done the complainant had hectic pain in an around the operated area. When he was informed to the first opposite party about the pain the first opposite party told the complainant that the pain would be persistent until the wound is healed. But the pain became unbearable subsequently. Hence he had try to contact the first opposite party but he could not contact the first opposite party. When he approached the second opposite party, they also not properly respond. Hence, the complainant had no other option, but approached another Dr. P.E.Udhayakumar, at Pattayak Street, Velapadi, Vellore. The said doctor had recommended for scan and it was taken at Sri Gokulam, Scan Centre on 26.11.2013. Then the said doctor referred the complainant to go to one Dr.Mani Elango of Dinesh Hospital. On visiting Dr. Mani Elango he also recommend a scan, he again took a scan from the Vellore CT Scan and Research Centre on 27.11.2013. On seeing the scan report the and inspecting the complainant had found that the operation done on him at the right and left inguinal area was not done in a proper manner as per the and he was advised to get admitted for treatment immediate operation. Fearing for the worse the complainant got himself immediately admitted at Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre Porur, Chennai-116, on 28.11.2013 and got himself operated on 2.12.2013 an operation was done. The said Ramachandra hospital findings on the complainant that there was ‘defect 5x2cm medalle, mess place In front of called structed’. The doctors and Sri. Ramachandra Medical Centre also stated that due to operation and left and right inguinal area were not done as per the procedure. There was an in dense implantation and irreducible direct hernia. Adhesion to be released medical sac identify and separated from the cord structure and sac opened and contended were noted and inder loop adhesion removed and contend were reduced. After being operated Sri. Ramachandra Medical Centre he was discharged on 5.12.2013. As on date he is hale and healthy without any complication has occurred before due to the operation was done by the first and second opposite party hospital. According to the complainant as per the version of doctors and Sri.Ramachandra Medical Centre, Porur, Chennai the operation was done by the first opposite party at the second opposite party hospital clear case of medical negligence gross deficiency of service and want of care. Therefore, there is deficiency in service and negligence deliberate negligence in performing defective surgery by the first and second opposite party’s hospital. This opposite party jointly and severally compensation for the same. Hence this complaint.
2. The written version of first opposite party is as follows:
The allegations contained in para 2 stating that the complainant visited the Government Hospital, Adukkambarai, Vellore on the recommendation made by the P.A to the Minister of Health is news to the opposite party. The other allegations in the same para stating that he was refer to the first opposite party where the first party works are all false. The first opposite party never worked with the second opposite party. It is further false to state while the complainant was in the Government Hospital he asked to take several tests and accordingly he had also taken test on recommendations are all news to this opposite party. This opposite party did not aware of all those things. On the other hand the true facts being the complainant who had been chronic smoker with history of having quit 6 years before approached this opposite party in his clinic at No.2/43-A, Arni Road, Virupachipuram, Vellore with right and left grown swelling of 10 years duration with pain over left groin and scrotum. This opposite party never seen before in Government Hospital prior to his arrival to his clinic as stated supra. This opposite party never persuaded him to attend his clinic for the problem as mentioned in the complaint. Instead this opposite party learnt that the complainant had been on admission previously in Government Hospital Adukkambarai by some other Doctors and he absconded from the Government Hospital after prolonged days of admission there. Further when the complainant approached the first opposite party as stated supra on clinical examination he had been diagnosed to have right and left inguinal hernia (left more than right) for which the complainant had consented to undergo surgery hernioplasty- mesh repair, only for the left inguinal hernia and he had not given consent for right inguinal hernia. Hence, this opposite party decided to protected with the left hernioplasty and operated only for his left inguinal hernia and not for his right inguinal hernia as mentioned in the complaint and notice. This opposite party clearly explained to the patient and his attenders about the possibility of recurrence after surgery in view of his respiratory problem due to previous chronic smoking. And obtained consent. Further the opposite party had recorded the possibility of recurrence in the cash sheet also. Nebulisation thereby with salbutamol had been given for the respiratory problem and severe cough that occurred during the operation and in the immediate post operative period. Further this opposite party explained orally to the attenders about the possibility of recurrence in the immediate post operative period because of respiratory complication that occurred in the intra operative period. After the operation this opposite party followed up him post operatively till 10th post operative day at his home and his clinic after he had been discharged after he had been discharged from the hospital on the second post operative day. Further this opposite party examined him in his clinic on 10th post operative day when he complaint of pain at operated site during which time the opposite party checked him and found vital organs that were stable and his wound has been healed and removed the sutures completely with the advise to review in the opposite party’s clinic in case of pain did not subside or if any problem distension occurs. But, the complainant discontinued from the treatment and follow up by this opposite party and got admitted in the Ramachandra Hospital, Porur Chennai. As per the operative findings noted at reoperation mentioned as defect 5 x 2 cm medially, mesh placed in front of cord sutures, intense, inflammations, adhesions and irreducibility of the sac could have been occurred as consequence of his respiratory complication and coughing due to previous chronic smoking that develop in the intro operative and post operative period with subsequent mesh displacement from the defect giving way for the sac to enter through the defect with subsequent adhesion of the sac to the surrounding post operatively inflamed cord structures resulting in subsequent irreducibility of the contents of the sac. Hence, it is a purely case of re-occurrence due to compromised respiratory status of the patient and not negligence on the part of this opposite party surgical techniques including dissection of sac separation of sac from cord structures, reduction of contents of the sac into peritoneal cavity, defect repair using suturing and mesh placement were all done appropriately by this opposite party as per the procedure and the opposite party took utmost care and precautions. Inspite of precautions and appropriate surgical technique recurrence could have occurred because of respiratory complication on the part of the patient. Hence, this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant. The other allegations contained in the complaint contrary to what has been stated above are utter false wood invented by the complainant to black mail and grab money from this opposite party. This opposite party is filing the Xerox copy of the case sheet along with this counter. This Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to read the same as part and parcel of this counter. This opposite party used the operation theatre of the second opposite party for conducting surgery. The second opposite party has nothing to do with the operation. The second opposite party has been included in this case purposely with a view to grab money. Further this opposite party has collected Rs.4,500/- for conducting the operation. Since, the compl0ainant failed to appear for appear for follows up the treatment inspite of the advise made by this opposite party and got treated at Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai, this opposite party cannot held liable for any compensation towards medical expenses as claimed in the compliant. This opposite party did the operation with all precautions and applying technical procedures without any allegations and the complication alleged to have been occurred with the complainant is only due to his chronic smoking habit, and not because of any negligence on the part of this opposite party in conducting the operations. The claim of the complainant is not maintainable and sustainable in law and this opposite party is not liable to pay compensation much less the compensation amount of Rs.27,053/- Rs.50,000/- claimed by him because there was no gross deficiency of service medical negligence and want of care on the part of this opposite party. Therefore, this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3. Proof affidavit of complainant filed, Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 were marked. Written argument of complainant side filed. Proof affidavit of first and second opposite parties not filed. Documents were not filed opposite parties. Oral argument of complainant side heard.
`
4.The points that of arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief complainant is entitled to?
5. Point Nos. 1 and 2: The complainant had approached the Government Medical College and Hospital, Vellore having complaint of pain in groin area. The first opposite party examining the complainant and after diagnosed informed that he had right and left inguinal hernia. When he was inpatient at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Vellore. He has done several tests as recommended by the first opposite party. Further, the first opposite party doing a consultancy in the second opposite party Hospital. The first opposite party advised the complainant to admit in the second opposite party hospital where he was under gone surgery for the aforesaid herina and he was discharge from the second opposite party hospital on 15.11.2013. After discharge from the hospital he had pain in the operated area. Therefore, he had approached the first opposite party. But the first opposite party inform that the pain may be there, until the wound is fully healed. But he could not be tolerated the pain hence, he has approached one Dr. Mani Elango and he has recommended to take a scan. Accordingly he took scan and the scan report reveals the operation done by the first and second opposite parties is not proper one. Hence, the complainant himself admitted at Sri. Ramachandra Medical Centre at Porur, Chennai on 28.11.2013. On 2.12.2013 an operation was done and the problem due to the operation done by the first and second opposite party was corrected in the Ramachandra Hospital, and he was discharge from the said hospital on 05.12.2013. Now, he has hale and healthy without any complications. The main allegation of the complainant is that because of the operation done by the first and second opposite parties hospital, he suffered lot, for which the complainant was forced to do the second operation to correct the mistake done in the first operation. Therefore, the both opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. On the other hand the written version filed by the opposite party denying the allegation of the complainant. According to them he had the breathing problem and for which he has also took Nebulisation therapy. Further, he has not followed the introversion given by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no negligence in doing the operation for the complainant and thereby there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties. However, the opposite parties did not lead any evidence to support their contention and to disprove the allegation of the complainant.Hence, these Point Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
6. POINT NO. 3: As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,053/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand and Fifty Three only) towards expenses incurred by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Hence, this Point No. 3 is also answered accordingly.
7. In the result, this complaint, is partly allowed. The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,053/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand and Fifty Three only) towards expenses incurred by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17th October 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
- MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1-09.10.2013 –Copy of letter given by the special personal, assistant to the
Minister of Health to the Dean of the GVMC & H, Vellore District.
Ex.A2-25.10.2013 –Copy of Test results slip
Ex.A3 - Copy of Receipts issued by the staff at GVMC & H
Ex.A4-04.11.2013 –Copy of Assistant professor at GVMC & H Letter to the
Anaesthetist at GVMC & H, Vellore regarding the fitness of the
complainant
Ex.A5-07.11.2013 - Copy of the Anaesthetist responding regarding the complainants
fitness.
Ex.A6-11.11.2013 - Copy of Sri Anand Ultra Sound Scan report
Ex.A7-15.11.2013 - Copy of receipt issued by the second opposite party
Ex.A8 - Copy of discharge summary given by the first opposite party
Ex.A9 - Copy of letter by the second opposite party
Ex.A10-26.11.2013- Copy of Shri Gokulam Scan Centre Scan & Research Centre
Scan report
Ex.A11-27.11.2013 – Copy of Vellore CT Scan Centre Scan Report
Ex.A12 - Copy of admission slip of Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre
Ex.A13-28.11.2013 - Copy of receipt issued by Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre
Ex.A14-28.11.2013 - Copy of Test report issued by Sri Ramachandran Medical
Centre
Ex.A15- 05.12.2013 –Copy of discharge summary issued by Sri Ramachandra
Medical Centre
Ex.A16-11.12.2013 - Copy of receipt
Ex.A17- - - Copy of medical bills.
Ex.A18-01.03.2014 – Copy of notice issued to both the opposite parties
Ex.A19 - Copy of returned cover of the first opposite party
Ex.A20-02.04.2014 - Copy of reply given by the second opposite party’s counsel
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
