IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of October, 2009
Filed on 08.06.05
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.87/05
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
A.P.Sugathan, 1. Duty Doctor, E.S.I. Hospital,
Kizhakkepanackal, Kadappuram, Alappuzha.
Ward-7,
Kadakkarappally Panchayat, 2. Duty Nurse, E.S.I. Hospital,
Kadakkarappally Village, Kadappuram, Alappuzha.
Cherthala.
3. The Superintendent, E.S.I. Hospital,
Kadappuram, Alappuzha.
4. The Regional Director,
Kerala State ESI Corporation, Thrissur.
5. The Director, Kerala State Health Department,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.Santhosh Mathews)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH(PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows: - The complainant is a daily wage earner. The complainant, on 1st January 2005 approached the doctor in ESI Hospital, Beach, Alappuzha with a referral letter from ESI, Cherthala. On being checked up, the complainant was administered an injection by the 2nd opposite party in the manner, 1st opposite party recommended. Immediately thereafter, the complainant felt terribly disturbed and unsettled. The complainant's injected arm turned taut and the flipside of the shoulder swelled up. Resultantly, with the insistence of the patients around, the complainant was providentially referred to Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. The complainant had to undergo treatment therein till 25th January 2005 as inpatient. Though the eminent doctors of the aforesaid hospital salvaged the complainant's upper limb from being amputated, the complainant is still seriously pursuing treatment. The complainant could hardly carry out any work even to eke out a living. The stiffness of the arm exists still hard. The complainant had to expend enormous amount for his treatment. The opposite parties are liable for the complainant's woes. The complainant sustained irreparable injury at the hands of the opposite parties. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed versions. The 1 to 3 opposite parties contend that the complainant was tendered abundant care and best available treatment and attention in the hospital. On being got admitted, the complainant was thoroughly checked up in every way and administered Paracetmol injection. Later on, the complainant complained of pain and was taken to causality. The first opposite party now noted swelling up somewhere around in the arm. Notwithstanding meticulous examination, muscular or neurological complication was not detected. If the alleged disability is the consequence of the injection in question, there would have been injury to the complainant's nerve, the opposite parties contend. The complainant's disability is due to the narrowing of the cervical spine which can never be the outcome of the injection, the opposite parties argue. There is no negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties assert.
2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and other two witnesses were examined as PW2 & PW3, and the documents were marked as Exbts. Al to A12. On the side of the opposite parties, three doctors and the 2nd opposite party were examined as RW1 to RW4, and the documents were marked as Exbts. B1 to B4.
3. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant sustained any disability as alleged?
(2) If any, whether the same was the direct consequence of the injection in question?
(3) If that be so, whether there was gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Concededly the complainant was treated by the opposite parties. It is not disputed, that the complainant was administered Paracetmol injection. The complainant forcefully alleges that he sustained permanent disability of his upper limb consequent to the negligent injection of Paracetmol. Holding this contention alive in mind, we anxiously perused the pleadings, affidavit, testimonies and detailed arguments placed on record by the parties. At the first blush itself of the evidence brought on record, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to let in tangible materials that substantiate or the least bit to support his contention that the complainant sustained permanent disability of his arm. It is true that consequent to the injection the complainant felt uneasiness, stiffness and swelling up on the particular region of the arm. In this context, what we need now to look into is whether the said injury has been caused as a result of Paracetmol injection. It is to be borne in mind that the courts or Consume Fora are not experts in medical science. We have usually to rely on the testimonies of doctors who are well conversant with such issues. We carefully went through the depositions of RW1 to RW3 expert doctors. According to them, there can hardly be any chance of stiffness or a consequent disability for the mere reason of administering Paracetmol injection. Further, if it is assumed that stiffness is the outcome of negligent piercing of needle, the complainant must have certainly sustained neurological injury, the doctors categorically opine. In the instant case, it appears that the complainant is not suffering from any nerve injury. According to the doctors, the tautness of the complainant's upper arm is the consequence of narrowing of the cervical spine. The RWs firmly assert that, injection of Paracetmol can never cause any damage to cervical spine. At the same time, it is noteworthy that even the complainant has no case that the Paracetmol is an incorrect, injurious or unsafe medicine.
A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong during reasonable course of treatment for the reasons beyond his control. He would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent doctor in the field. It is to be remembered that sometimes despite their best sincere efforts the treatment of doctors fail. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against. As we have already referred to, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, not a scrap of evidence is there on record to suggest that there was laxity or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. In the wake of the forgoing facts and findings in the above case, we regret, we are of the view that the complainant’s case does not merit acceptance.
In the result, the, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2009.
.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Document produced by summoned witness marked as Ext.X1
PW1 - A.P.Sugathan (Witness)
PW2 - Ponnappan (Witness)
PW3 - Mini.K.V (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The Original Discharge Card from T.D.Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha
Ext. A2 - The Original O.P Ticket of the complainant from T.D.M.C.H, Alapuzha
Ext. A3 - The copy of the Summary sheet / Treatment details of T.D.M.C.H, Alapuzha
Ext. A4 - The original prescription of Dr.Renny Napoleon dated, 13.04.2005
Ext. A5 - The original photograph
Ext. A6 - The Medical Bills (12 Nos.)
Ext. A7 - The Paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dated, 29.01.2005
Ext. A8 - The Paper cutting of Mathrubhoomi daily dated, 29.01.2005
Ext. A9 - The Paper cutting of Deepika daily dated, 29.01.2005
Ext. A10 - The Paper cutting of Rashtrdeepika daily dated, 03.03.2005
Ext. A11 - The copy of the Advocate Notice dated, 28.02.2005
Ext. A12 - The undelivered Notice sent to Dr.Geethadas
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Dr.K.K.Sukumaran (Witness)
RW2 - Ajayalal.D (Witness)
RW3 - Dr.Shaji.C.V (Witness)
RW4 - Sreedeviamma.C (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The copy of the Contribution Certificate of ESI Corporation
Ext. B2 series - The copy of Case sheets (4 Nos.)
Ext.B3 - The copy of the letter from Directorate of Insurance Medical Services
Thiruvananthapuram dated, 04.12.2008
Ext. B4 - The copy complaint submitted before the State Human Rights Commission
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
