Date of filing : 29.07.2013
Date of transfer:16.06.2022
Date of order : 28.09.2022
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
WEDNESDAY THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 46/2022
V. Purushothaman,
Son of Velayudham,
No. 270, Dr. Santhosh Nagar,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Dr. U. Mohan Rau Memorial Hospital,
Rep. by its Dean,
No. 962, Poonamallee High Road,
Purasawalkam,
Chennai – 600 084.
2. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Mohan Rao,
Dr. U. Mohan Rau Memorial Hospital,
No.962, Poonamallee High Road,
Purasawalkam,
Chennai – 600 084.
3. Dr. Hariharan,
Plastic Surgeon,
Dr. U. Mohan Rau Memorial Hospital,
No.962, Poonamallee High Road,
Purasawalkam,
Chennai – 600 084. …Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : M/s.M.Murugan & Other
Counsel for opposite parties : M/s.Anand, Abdul and Vinoth Associates
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L.PRESIDENT
The 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 jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.61,000/- towards the medical expenses and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, hardship to the complainant and also to pay cost of this complaint.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant had felt his nose is little bit externally large in size during June 2011 he approached the first opposite party for consultation in this regard and there he met second and third opposite parties and consulted whether his nose size could be reduced externally. Second opposite is running the first opposite party hospital while third opposite party is a plastic surgeon working in the hospital. Second and third opposite parties persuaded the complainant assuring it is possible and his nose size could be reduced by doing a minor surgery namely Dermaberation for Rhinophima in his nose externally for which complainant had paid Rs.40,000/- for surgery and another Rs.10,000/- for clinical tests etc., and assured that definitely size of the nose would be reduced. Believing their words and assurance, the complainant agreed to undergo surgery as suggested by them by spending the huge amount hoping that his nose size would be reduced. Pursuant to the same, the complainant was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on 21.07.2011 with the fond hope that size of his nose would be reduced and a surgery called Dermaberation for Rhinophima was done on 22.07.2011. Thereafter he was under the observation of the opposite parties until he discharged on 25.07.2011. It is relevant to note that prior to surgery the complainant did not have any complications such as diabetes, snoring, difficulty in breathing etc.,. From the date of surgery itself, the complainant felt service rendered by the opposite parties is not good as his nose size is not reduced at all as assured and persuaded, on the contrary the size of nose has became more bulky, often he is getting clinical smell, his face itself often becomes bulky etc.,. Hence, the complainant approached the opposite parties with these complaints on several occasions including on 10.09.2011. Further the second and third opposite parties advised the complainant to undergo another surgery saying some mistakes could have happened in the earlier surgery and if he undergoes another surgery it will be rectified and for which he has to spend another Rs.10,000/-. Though the complainant was not able to manage the amount, he preferred to undergo such surgery so as to rectify the fault as stated. Consequently in December 2011 the complainant underwent another surgery which was done by the third opposite party for which the complainant had spent about Rs.11,000/-. Despite that no improvement is there. But his size of the nose has became more bulky, often getting medicals smell etc.,. Therefore on several occasions the complainant contacted the opposite parties with these complaints. But the opposite parties failed to heed his grievance. The opposite parties have cheated the complainant and persuaded him to undergo surgery only with intention to obtain money and nothing else. For the said purpose only the opposite parties had further complicated the issue by saying to undergo another surgery. Believing their words, the complainant has totally incurred Rs.61,000/- to undergo two surgeries. Due to the professional negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant’s nose has became more bulky than earlier and often he is getting clinical smell and his face itself is often becomes bulky thereby causing much hardship to him. The action of the opposite parties is a clear case of deficiency in service and professional negligence on their part for which all the opposite parties have to suitably compensate the complainant. Though the complainant is entitled to seek higher amount, he is restricting his claim to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.61,000/- towards the expenditure incurred for two surgeries totally Rs.5,61,000/-. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 13.02.2013 to the opposite parties exposing the chronic negligence and also the loss and sufferings of the complainant consequent to the professional negligence of the opposite parties which notice the first and second opposite parties received on 27.02.2013 and third opposite party received on 01.03.2013. After receipt of the notice, the first and second opposite parties gave a common lengthy reply dated 26.03.2013 with evasive, false and frivolous averments. They also forwarded purported copies of this records and photos and the complainant reliably understands that the records were not maintained according to established protocols and certain parts had been tempered with to cover up their recklessness and negligence. The third opposite party sent reply notice dated 12.03.2013 with false and frivolous averment. Hence, this complaint.
2. The written version of opposite parties are as follows:
The opposite parties deny all the averments and allegations made in the complaint, as the same are false and baseless except those, which are specifically admitted herein. The complainant is put to strict proof of those averments that are not admitted. The complaint is bereft of merits. It is false to state that when the complainant approached the opposite parties his nose was little bit externally large in size and the opposite parties assured the complainant that his nose size could be reduced by doing surgery namely Dermaberation for Rhinophima in his nose externally. Infact when complainant came to the first opposite party hospital he did have a bulky nose, which is evident from the case sheet and the photographs of the patient’s nose which is evident from the case sheet and the photographs of the patient’s nose which were taken pre-operatively. The skin of his nose was thick, sebaceous showing Rhinophymatous changes in his nose. The subcutaneous soft tissue over the nose was also bulky. Hence he was advised that only reduction of the thickness of the skin and removal of the subcutaneous soft tissue were possible in such type of noses. He was also informed that at first skin thickness reduction in the form of “Dermabrasion” could be done. The patient was clearly informed about the procedure and the possible outcome of the procedure in detail. After obtaining informed consent from the patient the procedure carried out. The patient had consented for the surgery, only after getting information from the opposite parties about the reduction of the thickness of the skin and removal of the subcutaneous soft tissue were possible in such type of nose. He was also informed that at the first instance the skin thickness reduction in the form of “Dermabrasion” could be done. Furthermore on the date of discharge on 25.07.2011, the patient was found to be normal, stable and comfortable. The condition of the patient was good and the operated area was healing well and no evidence of infection or bleeding was found. At the time of discharge he was advised deep breathing exercises. It is true that the patient did not have any complications such as diabetes, snoring, difficulty in breathing etc., prior to the surgery and patient to note that the condition was the same even at the time of surgery and post surgery. The patient did not complain about difficulty in breathing even at the time of review till 03.01.2012 which is evident from the discharge summary with follow up records filed by the complainant. Hence, at no point of time the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service while treating the patient. The dermabrasion is a surgical procedure involving removal of superficial part of the skin. As the wound will be raw, the dermabraded nose will be covered with dressings till the wound heals. The allegation in the legal notice that the size of the nose was not reduced at all from the date of surgery is false as he cannot see or feel his nose till the dressing are removed. The surgical procedure cannot be aggressive, as too much removal skin will produce unsightly scaring the dermabraded part of his nose was healed well without scaring. The preoperative and post operative photo graphs which were sent along with reply notice will prove the above said fact. Hence, all allegations that the size of nose had become more bulky after dermabrasion are baseless and imaginary. The opposite parties submit that the complaints like the alleged increase in the size of the face and nose or alleged medical smell were not complained to the opposite parties in any of the reviews by the opposite parties. The complainant if really increase of size of his face of nose and if he had really had medical smell in his nose, the same would have been reported to the opposite parties when the complainant was reviewed by the opposite parties and treated for the same. Hence in this case the follow up record of the patient with the opposite parties do not show any of the above mentioned in the present complaint. Those allegations are contrary to the discharge summary with follow up notes of the opposite parties. Further there cannot be any alterations that the alleged increase in the size of his face due to dermabrasion of the nose are with and baseless since no surgery was performed on his face. The photographs of the complainant’s nose, which are taken pre and post operatively, indicate otherwise. The opposite parties denies the allegation in para 5 of the complaint as false and imaginary. The third opposite party submits that as the patient was bothered about the thickness in the tip of the nose on 03.01.2012 when the patient was reviewed by the third opposite party in the first opposite party hospital, the third opposite party suggested the procedure called sub dermal/subcutaneous excision, as s through the said procedure soft tissue can be excised. As he wanted to have that procedure at a lesser cost, the third opposite party advised him to go to the Government Hospital with a referral letter. In fact the complainant refused the same and compelled the third opposite party to do the said procedure in another hospital, where the charges would be affordable to him. Accordingly, the third opposite party did the subdermal/subcutaneous excision of the soft tissue in the tip and supratip region of the nose. The excised specimen was also shown to the complainant. The said procedure was done as day care surgery on an outpatient basis, by the 3rd opposite party. If the complainant had really been dissatisfied with the treatment rendered by the opposite parties, he would have not approached and compelled the 3rd opposite party to do the surgery called subdermal / subcutaneous excision of the soft tissue in the tip and supratip region of the nose. Hence the allegations that the opposite parties were deficient in their services do not hold water and there has been no negligence, carelessness or callous attitude on the part of the opposite parties. The procedure called subdermal / subcutaneous excision of the soft tissue in the tip and supratip of the nose and the procedure dermabrasion could not be done together for fear of skin necrosis and bad scaring. Hence the second surgery is a second stage and the second procedure was not done as a corrective surgery as alleged by the complainant. Hence the allegations are bald, without any iota of proof and with no medical knowledge. He was advised regular follow ups to assess the healing and the result, as post operative edema will take time to settle down. He never turned up for follow up with 3rd opposite party, which is much against the advice of the 3rd opposite party. The condition rhinophyma, by which the complainant had bulky nose, was completely cured by the procedure called dermabrasion on the patient. Hence at no point of the time the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service while treating the patient. Necessary steps were taken by the opposite parties with due care and diligence while doing the surgery called dermabrasion on the patient. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, further as the treatment was given to the patient as per the established medical protocol, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation or expenses incurred by the complainant as claimed in the complaint. Immediately after the receipt of legal notice from the complainant detailed reply was issued by the opposite parties despite which the complainant has approached this Hon’ble forum with vexatious allegations and with no medical knowledge. Hence the present complaint is to be dismissed with cost. More so the amount claimed in the complaint is excessive and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any money as claimed by the complainant.
3. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked. Proof affidavit of opposite parties not filed. Document was not filed. Written arguments of both sides filed. Both sides oral arguments heard.
4. The Points that 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, the complainant is entitled to?
5. POINT NOS.1 & 2: The complainant felt that his nose is little bit externally large in size. During June 2011 he had approached the first opposite party for consultation in this regard and there he met second and third opposite parties and consulted whether his nose size could be reduced externally. Second opposite party is running the first opposite party hospital. While the third opposite party is a plastic surgeon working in the above said hospital. The allegation of the complainant is that after consultation of the opposite parties, second and third opposite parties persuaded the complainant assured that it is possible and his nose could be reduced by doing minor surgery namely dermabrasion for Rhinophyma in his nose externally. Accordingly he admitted in first opposite party hospital on 21.07.2011 with the hope that the size of his nose would be reduced and a surgery called dermabrasion for Rhinophyma surgery was done on 22.07.2011. He was under the observation of the opposite parties until he discharged from the hospital on 25.11.2011. After the operations the complainant felt that service rendered by the opposite parties is not good as his nose size was not reduced at all as assured and persuaded. On the contrary, the size of nose has become more bulky often he is getting clinical smell and his face itself often becomes bulky etc., Hence the complainant approached the opposite parties with these complaints on several occasions including on 10.09.2011. The second and third opposite parties advised the complainant to undergo another surgery saying some mistake could have happened in the earlier surgery if he undergoes another surgery it will be rectified and for which he has to spend another rupees 10,000/- though the complainant was not able to manage the amount, he preferred to undergo such surgery to rectify the fault. Accordingly, the second surgery was done in December 2011 for which the complainant had spent Rs.11,000/- in total both surgery he has paid Rs. 61,000/-. Despite that no improvement was there but size of his nose has become more bulky and he often getting medical smell etc., Accordingly, the complainant is that the opposite parties did not reduced his nose assured during the consultation before the operation. Further they also done the operation mistakenly for which he has undergone second operation. Per contra in the written version the opposite party categorically denied the allegation the complainant. In fact, he was also informed that first skin thickness reduction in the form of dermabrasion could be done for which the complainant consented for the surgery. Only after getting informed concerned from the complainant. The procedure of dermabrasion was done. The dermabrasion is a surgical procedure of removal of skin. After doing the first surgery he has been discharged from the hospital without any complaint like increase in the areas of the face and nose or allergy of medical smell. But when the complainant came for review on 13.01.2012 the complainant bothered about the thickness in the tip of nose. When the operation was reviewed by the third opposite party. The third opposite party consented the procedure called subdermal/subcutaneous excision. On going through the medical records and averments made in the complaint, as well as the written version we did not find any material irregularity of the opposite party done the surgery without any due care as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party in performing the aforesaid medical procedure for reducing his nose. Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 answered.
6. Point No. 3: In Point Nos.1 and 2, we have decided that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
7. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th September 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAIANNT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1-08.06.2011 - Copy of clinical report
Ex.A2-16.06.2011 - Copy of clinical report
Ex.A3-17.06.2011 - Copy of clinical report
Ex.A4 - Copy of E.C.G.
Ex.A5-25.07.2011 - Copy of cash bill
Ex.A6-25.07.2011 - Copy of bill for Hospital services
Ex.A7 - Copy of medical records
Ex.A8-25.07.2011 - Copy of Discharge summary
Ex.A9-30.07.2011 - Copy of medical records
Ex.A10-13.02.2013 – Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant and
acknowledgement cards
Ex.A11-04.02.2013 - Copy of interim reply notice by opposite parties
Ex.A12-26.03.2013 - Copy of reply issued by opposite parties
Ex.A13-12.03.2013 - Copy of reply issued by opposite party
LIST OF SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 - Copy of Cash Sheet
Ex.B2- 25.07.2011 - Copy of discharge summary
Ex.B3-26.03.2013 - Copy of reply notice by first opposite party
Ex.B4-12.03.2013 - Copy of reply notice by third opposite party
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
