DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

CC No.83/2006

Veeran Haji,

S/o.Kunhappu alias Syedali,

Pullangadu House,

Cherppulassery,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.John John)

Vs

1. Dr.Ranganathan,

Royal Hospital,

Near Bus Stand,

Cherpulassery.P.O,

Palakkad District.

(By Adv.V.K.Venugopalan)

2. M/s.Royal Hospital,

Near Bus Stand,

Cherpulassery.P.O,

Palakkad District. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.K.K.Suresh Lal)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

In short the case of the complainant is as follows:

Complainant was suffering from fever on 11/09/2005. He went to the 2^nd opposite party for treatment. There he was treated as out patient by one Dr.C.S.Nair, attached to the 2^nd opposite party and had relief. Next day he felt slight chest pain and again went to the 2^nd opposite party. Dr.C.S.Nair examined him and advised to consult 1^st opposite party stating he is the chest specialist attached to 2^nd opposite party hospital. 1^st opposite party after examining the complainant told that he was suffering from pneumonia and started treatment. Two or three injections were given at about 3 pm on 12/09/2005 after which the complainant felt shivering and fever. Next day also injections and tablets were given pursuant to which fever increased. The same treatment continued on 14/09/2005 also.

Complainant's condition became very bad. Though the complainant requested 1^st opposite party for shifting him to another hospital, 1^st opposite party did not permit it. Complainant and his relatives felt that the treatment given by 1^st opposite party is not proper. Hence they got discharged from 2^nd opposite party hospital and got admitted in EMS Hospital, Perinthalmanna on 17/09/2005 at midnight. The Doctors at EMS Hospital applied some medicines first and then stopped all medicines on 19/09/2005. Doctors at the EMS Hopital opined that they were not able to diagnose any disease. Doctors advised to take rest for a few days in the hospital. Complainant was discharged on 23/09/2005. According to the complainant, 1^st opposite party treated the complainant at the 2^nd opposite party hospital without diagnosing any illness and both opposite parties were totally negligent in the treatment given to the complainant. Complainant was made to suffer from 12/09/2005 to 17/09/2005. Lawyer notice was issued to both opposite parties claiming compensation for which 2^nd opposite party alone replied stating false contentions. Hence the complainant claims an amount of Rs.35,800/- as compensation with interest.

2. Opposite parties filed version. According to the contention of 1^st opposite party the complainant was admitted at 2^nd opposite party hospital on 11/09/2005 complaining fever and head ache. He was examined by the duty Doctor Dr.C.S.Nair and necessary treatment was given. Complainant came again on 12/09/2005 complaining mild chest pain and breathlessness. He was admitted. Blood test, X-ray, ECG etc were taken. Complainant's disease was diagnosed as lower respiratory tract infection. His fever used to wax and wane. As his oral intake of food and fluids were insufficient IV dextrose and saline was administered. The patient was improving. On 17/09/2005 complainant's brother insisted shifting him to EMS Hospital, Perinthalmanna and accordingly he was discharged. Further 1^st opposite party never claimed to be a chest specialist. The proper treatment given is reflected in the case sheet. He was suffering from lower respiratory tract infection which resulted in fever. He got well on completion of the course of anti biotic prescribed. Complainant was treated on the normal line of treatment followed by a Physician. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 2^nd opposite party also filed version in line with 1^st opposite party.

3. Now the evidence adduced consists of the affidavit, Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant. Both opposite parties has not filed any affidavit or documents. Records from EMS Hospital, Perinthalmanna is marked as Ext.C1. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Doctor from EMS Hospital, Perinthalmanna was examined as PW2. Records from Royal Hospital marked as Ext.C2.

4. Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? and

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

5. Point No.1: The specific case of the complainant is that 1^st opposite party failed to diagnose the disease of the complainant and without diagnosing the disease has undergone treatment which resulted in much hardship and suffering to the complainant. 1^st opposite party was wrongly stated to be a chest specialist where in fact it was not so. After undergoing treatment in EMS Hospital only, he has recovered from illness.

6. We have gone through all evidence on record and heard the learned counsels for both parties. It is evident from records that the complainant was admitted in Royal Hospital from 12/09/05 to 17/09/05 and he was discharged on 17/09/05 at the request of his family members. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. From Ext.C1 (case sheet from the EMS Hospital, Perinthalmanna) the disease was clearly seen to be diagnosed as Respiratory Tract Infection. Accordingly antibiotics were started. The Doctor who has examined the complainant at EMS Hospital was examined as PW2. While examining PW2, never stated any negligence on the part of 1^st opposite party in diagnosing the disease. PW2 has stated in the Chief examination itself that it is common to have fever and chest pain in case of Respiratory Tract Infection. In cross examination PW2 has specifically stated that he has only continued the line treatment given at the opposite party 2 hospital. It is true that complainant has no symptoms of Respiratory Tract Infection at the time he was admitted in EMS Hospital. From the hospital records it can be seen that complainant was given antibiotic for Respiratory Tract Infection by the 1^st opposite party. So it can only be concluded that disease got subsided due to the intake of antibiotic even though course was not completed.

7. Regarding the sufferings of the complainant at the 2^nd opposite party hospital, it is likely to have weakness, when there is intake of antibiotics. The suffering of the complainant can only be understood as a result of the intake of antibiotics.

8. From the available evidence on record we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour.

9. In the result complaint dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

10.Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th day of July, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Shri.Veeran Haji

PW2 – Dr.K.Mohandas

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1(Series) – Medical Bills of Cherpulassery Hospital (1^st opposite party)

Ext.A2 – Bills from 2^nd opposite party Hospital

Ext.A3 – Copy of lawyer notice

Ext.A4 – Reply notice of 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A5 – Postal receipt and acknowledgement card of lawyer notice

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Forum's exhibit

Records from EMS Hospital, Perinthalmanna is marked as Ext.C1

Records from Royal Hospital marked as Ext.C2.

Costs (Not allowed)