Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/281/2015

M/s.G.Dasaratha Raman - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.M.Specialty Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

28 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   29.06.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :   28.12.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT             

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

 

C.C.NO.281/2015

WEDNESDAY THIS  28^TH  DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

Mr. G. Dasarath Raman,

Plot No.962, Lakshmanaswamy road,

West  K.K. Nagar,

Chennai 600 078.                                ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

1. K.M. Specialty Hospital,

No.453/454 R.K. Shanmugam Salai,

K.K. Nagar,

Chennai – 78.

 

2. The Managing Director,

K.M. Specialty Hospital,

No.453/454  R.K. Shanmugam Salai,

K.K. Nagar,

Chennai – 78.

                         

3. Srinivasan,

Physiotherapist,

K.M. Specialty Hospital,

No.453/454  R.K. Shanmugam Salai,

K.K. Nagar,

Chennai – 78.                                            ..Opposite parties

 

For the Complainant                   :    Party in person.    

For the opposite parties               :    Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 

 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act to seek direction  to pay jointly and severally Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and sufferings suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the medical expenses, transportation charges, doctor consultation fees, medicines, attendant salary litigation and incidental charges and to pay the cost of the complaint.

1.  The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant being  82 years old was having Knee pain and he consulted a doctor on 27.3.2015 who had described medicines and advised to take physiotherapy (IFT/wax treatment).   After perusing the x-ray taken at Hariharan Hospital,  Nanganallur, Chennai and medical prescription,  Mr.Srivasan, physiotherapist attached to the 1^st opposite party wanted the complainant to give treatment by paying Rs.200/-.   After paying the said amount he started his treatment on 30.3.2015.   After giving wax treatment the 3^rd opposite party switched over to the current treat at higher dosage.  Instead of giving treatment for right Knee he gave treatment for left knee covering both the legs by a blanket and passed on the current.   When the complainant told him that the treatment is only for the right knee he said he is giving treatment for  both the legs.  The complainant felt some roughness on the left knee and dis-comfort

2.     The complainant further contended that on 31.3.2015 when the  3^rd opposite party gave current treatment for right knee instead of starting with mild degree of dosage he gave higher degree of dosage of current for 15 minutes and then wax treatment for 20 minutes continuously.   When the complainant returned home he found that the affected portion became red and after two hours he found many boils.   Then the complainant consulted the local doctor on 31.3.2015 who advised to give ice fermentation and prescribed medicines.  He said it is due to the higher dosage of current and advised into discontinue the treatment till it heals.   The complainant was unable to bear the burning sensation and sufferings.   The physiotherapist on account of his negligent and hasty action had caused boils resulting agony and sufferings as he did not adhere to proper procedure in giving treatment which amounts to deficiency of service.   

3.     The complainant further contended that on 1.4.2015 he was taken to the same physiotherapist where one Miss. Lavanaya who was on duty as a physiotherapist saw the wound with the boils was shocked since the said Srinivasan was not on duty.    The complainant was unable to walk and confined to bed and underwent a minor operation on the right knee.  The gross violation of the procedure adopted for giving treatment coupled with dereliction of duty which tant-amount to medical negligence for which he is liable.   The complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 8.4.2015 whereas though it was acknowledged by them they did not come for settlement or gave treatment to the complainant which was the result of the lapse of the physiotherapist of their hospital.   Hence the complainant filed the above complaint.

4.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite parties did not appear before this forum and therefore they were set exparte.

5.     Though the opposite parties remained expate this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this forum. 

6.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked. 

7.      At this juncture the point for consideration before this Forum is:

1.   Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite     parties as alleged in the complaint?.

 

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for?

 

8.      POINT NO.1       

          On perusing the complaint and the proof affidavit it reveals that due to pain in the right knee on the advice of the doctor the complainant took x-ray and on his advice he approached 3^rd opposite party who is the physiotherapist  attached to the 1^st opposite party hospital who gave IFK/wax treatment for two days i.e. on 30.3.2015 and 31.3.2015.   It reveals that the grievance of the complainant is that instead of giving treatment for right knee the 3^rd opposite party gave it for left knee covering both the legs by a blanket and passed on the current, when the complainant questioned him he told that he is giving treatment for both the legs and as a result he felt some roughness on the left knee and discomfort.   Further grievance is that instead of starting with mild degree of dosage the 3^rd opposite party gave higher degree of dosage of current for 15 minutes and then wax treatment for 20 minutes continuously due to which after two hours he found many boils on the knee.   When he consulted the local doctor they prescribed some medicines and advised to discontinue the treatment the complainant was unable to bear the burning sensation and sufferings.   Hence he underwent a minor operation on the right knee and incurred medical expenses.   Therefore the act of the opposite parties amount to medical negligence.  

9.     It is evidenced through Ex.A9 that the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.200/- to the hospital.  As stated above in order to prove his contention the complainant has filed the x-ray and the photos with boils around the knee i.e. ExA3.    Whereas for the contention of the complainant that he had undergone a minor operation which was due to wrong treatment given by 3^rd opposite party to remove the boils, it is seen that except the photos and prescriptions no evidence  to substantiate his allegation of deficiency in service attributed against 3^rd opposite party  is produced by him namely expert opinion, certificate of surgery given by the doctor who performed the operation and medical bills.     The complainant had also stated that he had issued legal notice to the opposite parties which is Ex.A6 but there is no proof for acknowledgment of the same by the opposite parties as alleged by him.      

10.    Although the opposite party remained exparte the complainant had to prove his case independently through vital documents.    However the complainant had evidenced in his proof affidavit attributing allegations against the 3rd opposite party for deficiency in service through photos i.e.Ex.A3 for which the opposite parties had not chosen to appear before this forum to refute the said contentions of the complainant and given any contra evidence but remained exparte.    

11.    Therefore from the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that there is some deficiency of service committed by the 3^rd  opposite party due to which the complainant in his old age had suffered mental agony and sufferings.   Hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 are also vicariously liable for the deficiency in service committed by the 3^rd opposite party.   As such the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and suffering due to their deficiency in service.  However the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and he is entitled only for just and reasonable compensation.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

12.    POINT No.2:-

        Further the claim of the complainant regarding compensation towards medical expenses, transportation charges, doctor consultation fees, medicines, attendant salary litigation and incidental charges,  the complainant had not produced any relevant document of medical certificate and other medical expenses incurred by him for surgery and transportation charges.  In absence of such documents he is not entitled to claim this relief.    Thus point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and sufferings due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.  Regarding other reliefs this complaint is dismissed.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.

          Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  28^th    day  of  December  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                            PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 27.3.2015  - copy of prescription slip.

EX.A2-         -       - Copy of Xray of the right knee.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Photos

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of prescription given by Dr.Sivakumar.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of Prescription given and treatment given by Ortho.

Ex.A6-  8.4.2015   - Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A7- 27.5.2015  - Copy of Prescription of diabetes and heart hospital

Ex.A8- 1.6.2015    - Copy of prescription

Ex.A9-         -       - Copy of registration slip 22954 denoting charges.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:   .. Nil.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                   PRESIDENT.