DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of August 2018
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R, President
: Smt.Suma.K.P, Member
: Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member Date of Filing : 01/09/2016
CC No.136/2016
Anifa Marakkar @ Mohammed Anifa,
S/o Markkar,
No -112/45, Pollachi Main Road,
Anamalai,
Tamilnadu PIN – 642 104.
(By Adv.A.K.Sundareswaran) - Complainant
Vs
1. Karuna Medical College Hospital,
Rep.by Trust Secretary,
Unnerikutty Moulavi,
Vilayodi, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad (Dt).
2. Dr.Sameer,
Chief Executive Officer,
Karuna Medical College Hospital,
Vilayodi, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad (Dt).
(By Adv.S.M.Unnikrishnan)
3. Dr.Sunny,
Department of Orthopedics,
Karuna Medical College Hospital,
Vilayodi, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad (Dt). - Opposite parties
(By Adbv.V.K.Venugopalan)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.Shiny.P.R, President.
Complaint in brief:
Complainant submitted that at about 9 A.M while he was travelling on motor cycle, he met with an accident and sustained series injuries on his left eye, let hand, left knee and one rib bone on the left side. Immediately he was taken to the 1st opposite party hospital. At about 10.15 A.M the 3rd opposite party consulted the complainant. At that time the complainant was suffering from severe injury pain. As per the direction of 3rd opposite party X-ray was taken. After that, complainant and his son waited to see 3rd opposite party. There was severe bleeding on the injuries. Eventhough complainant’s son contacted the nursing staff to attend the complainant’s injury, nobody was willing to attend the complainant. At 12.40 P.M the 3rd opposite party again directed the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-. This amount also paid immediately. But after receiving this amount by the opposite party nobody came to attend the complainant. Eventhough there was a fracture on the rib no first aid or any other treatment was given to the complainant till 3 P.M. After 2 P.M due to the severe pain and bleeding on the wounds the complainant became very much tired and he was in the verge of unconsciousness. He was not provided with any room or bed to take some rest. Complainant’s son contacted the public relation officer of the hospital Mr.Jainulabudeen and explained the serious condition of the complainant and requested for then help. Since there was no response till 3 P.M the complainant was forced to leave the hospital for better treatment. Then he went to “Sindhia Ortho Clinic”, Pollachi and admitted there. Complainant submitted that the act of the opposite parties amount to clear negligence and deficiency of service. Complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. 3rd opposite party alone sent a reply on 21.06.2016 denying all the allegations. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have not sent any reply.
The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions.
1st & 2nd opposite parties contended that the complainant came with a pain on the chest and complaint of Trauma and chest to the hospital after an accident sustained by him while driving his motor cycle. An X-ray of the chest was taken. There was no fracture. There was no difficulty in breathing. No cough or no palpitation and no internal injury. The complainant wanted to take rest. He was provided a room and the blunt chest injury on the left side was treated extremely. Dr.Sunny 3rd opposite party who is orthopedic surgeon attended him. Since no specific treatment was required he was kept under observation. The complainant not satisfied with the treatment given by the 1st opposite party hospital. He wanted to go to another hospital and was discharged against medical advice. The case sheet of the complainant was closed at 1.55 P.M on the same day i.e on 23.05.2016 recording patient absconded. There is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. Hence complaint is to be dismissed.
3rd opposite party contended that the complainant came to the outpatient department at the 1st opposite party hospital and consulted the 3rd opposite party at 09.00 A.M on 23.05.2016 with complaint of pain on left side of chest with an alleged history of fall from bike. The 3rd opposite party had noted the clinical findings and conducted detailed examination to rule out any bony or lung injury. For detailed evaluation the complainant was advised chest X-ray to confirm the physical examination findings. The chest X-ray did not show evidence of any gross bony abnormality or fracture and the X-ray findings were explained to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party prescribed medicines on a diagnosis of soft tissue injury and advised bed rest at home. Since the complainant had minor abrasion he was advised rib belt to reduce chest pain and there were no major complaints for IP treatment. But the complainant wanted to get admitted to the hospital for reason best known to him only. Eventhough the complainant was informed that he did not require IP treatment, he further insisted for admission and hence the 3rd opposite party had given instruction for admission was wrote medicines in IP chart as well. The orthopedic outpatient department in the 1st opposite party hospital is very crowded on Mondays and the 3rd opposite party had to attend about 30-40 patients between 10 A.M to 1 P.M. In between 10 A.M to 11 A.M the complainant came to the consultation room and met the 3rd opposite party three times. The complainant was admitted to special room and duly attended by nursing staff and Dr. Ravi Narayanan had also seen the patient. As per the reports from the nursing staff it was realized that the complainant was not co-operative to treatment and disobeying their instructions and from 2 P.M onwards he was not found in the room and enquiry revealed that he left the hospital on his own volition. Hence it was recorded that the patient was discharged as absconded from the hospital. The averment that the complainant had sustained serious injuries to his left eye, left hand, left knee and rib bone are not correct, and hence denied. The complainant had only soft tissue injury on chest caused by abrasion. The 3rd opposite party had attended and treated the complainant with due regard to his complaints and on the basis of clinical examination and radiological evaluation he was given proper advice and prescription of medicines. The complainant was treated strictly as per accepted protocol and he had only soft tissue injuries and there was no evidence of bony involvement as per X-ray findings and hence the line of treatment followed in his case was proper. There was absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party at any point of time in the treatment of the complainant and hence he is not liable to compensate the complainant either jointly or severally. The allegations put forth in the complainant’s lawyers notice are refuted by the 3rd opposite party by sending reply setting forth true and correct account of facts. The amount quantified as compensation highly exorbitant, exaggerated and without any substance, merit or rationale behind it. The opposite party is having qualification MBBS, MS(Ortho) with experience of 10 years as a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Exts.A1 to A10 marked from the side of complainant. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Witness from the side of complainant was examined as PW2.
3rd Opposite party also filed chief affidavit. Exts. B1 and B2 also marked from the side of 2nd opposite party. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were cross examined as DW1 and DW2. Evidence was closed and matter was heard.
Issues that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1&2
We have perused the affidavits and documents filed by both parties. Complainant submitted that on a road accident he had serious injuries on his left eye, left hand, left knee and one rib bone on the left side and also had severe pain and bleeding on the wounds at the time of admission. Allegation of the complainant is that opposite parties had not given proper treatment after getting admission in their hospital. As per Ext. A7 out patient record of 1st opposite party hospital and Ext. A9 discharge card issued from Sindhia Ortho Clinic, external injuries as alleged by the complainant were not seen noted. PW2 doctor in Sindhia Ortho Clinic also deposed at the time cross examination that he had not noted any injury other than the injury noted in Ext. A9 at the time of admission. In the above circumstances we cannot believe the plea of complainant that he had serious injuries on his left eye, let hand and left knee and severe pain and bleeding on the wounds.
On perusing the Ext.A7 documents it can be seen that 3rd opposite party doctor diagnosed the soft tissue injury on the ribs on the left side of the complainant. It is also seen from this record that 3rd opposite party doctor had advised for rib belt and wrote medicines in IP chart. Rib belt (binder) is commonly used for the cracked, fractured or dislocated ribs. As per Ext. A9 discharge card issued from Sindhia Ortho Clinic, treatment given by PW2, doctor in Sindhia Ortho Clinic was dynaplast strapping plus armslime. Dynaplast is usually used to wrap soft tissue injuries to provide compression and support. This helps to limit swelling and protects the affected area. Under the above circumstances we came to the conclusion that the 3rd opposite party doctor and PW2 doctor i.e doctor Sindhia Ortho Clinic were given similar treatment to the complainant for pain on the chest. In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa And Other V State Of Maharashtra And Others 1996 2 SCC 634 the Hon’ble SC held that ‘in every nature of medical profession, skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor and more than one course of treatment all are admissible. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability and with a reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable of the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession’. In the light of above decision we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of 3rd opposite party.
Complainant further alleged that even though there was a fracture on the rib no first aid or any other treatment was given to the complainant till 3 P.M. After 2 P.M due to the severe pain and bleeding on the wounds the complainant became very much tired and he was in the verge of unconsciousness. Since there was no response till 3 P.M the complainant was forced to leave the hospital for better treatment. Contention of opposite parties is that even though there were no major complaints for IP treatment as per the request of the complainant the 3rd opposite party had given instruction for admission and he was admitted to special room and duly attended by nursing staff but the complainant was not co-operative to treatment and disobeying their instructions and from 2 P.M onwards he was not found in the room and enquiry revealed that he left the hospital on his own volition. Complainant deposed at the time of cross examination that AUvanäv sN¿Ww F¶p Rm³ AhtcmSp ]dªp F¶Xp ticnbmWv. DW2 Nursing Superintendent of 1st opposite party hospital deposed while cross examination that the complainant was absconded from 1.35 pm on 23-5-2016. Perusal of Ext. B1 case record reveals that complainant was absconded from 1.35 pm onwards. There is no evidence to prove that complainant had waited till 3 pm for getting treatment. More over 15th Page of Ext. B1 series shows that complainant left the hospital for purchasing belt. In the above circumstances we are of the view that opposite parties had attended and treated the complainant with due regard to his complaints and on the basis of clinical examination and radiological evaluation he was given proper advice and prescription of medicines to the complainant. In the above discussions we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of August 2018.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Registration card issued by 1st opposite party to complainant dated.
23.05.2016
Ext.A2 series - Photocopy of cash bills issued by opposite party to the complainant
Dated. 23.05.2016
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of notice dated.04.06.2016 sent by the complainant to the
Opposite parties.
Ext.A4 series - Postal receipts & acknowledgement card duly signed by the opposite
Parties.
Ext.A5 - Photocopy of reply sent by the 3rd opposite party dated.21.06.2016 to the
Complainant.
Ext.A6 - Original X-Ray issued Karuna Medical College Hospital, Vilayodi, Chittur,
Palakkad to the complainant
Ext.A7 - Outpatient Record of Karuna Medical College Hospital, Vilayodi, Chittur,
Palakkad to the complainant
Ext.A8 - Original X-Ray issued Karuna Medical College Hospital, Vilayodi, Chittur,
Palakkad to the complainant
Ext.A9 - Fracture Service/Discharge Card issued by Sindhia Ortho Clinic, Pollachi
To the complainant
Ext.A10- Discharge sheet issued by Sindhia Ortho Clinic, Pollachi to the complainant
Dated.25.05.2016
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1- Original Case Record issued by Karuna Medical College Hospital, Vilayodi,
Chittur, Palakkad to the complainant
Ext.B2 - Certificate issued by the Manager Karuna Medical College Hospital,
Vilayodi,Chittur, Palakkad to Mrs.Aruna K
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Mohammed Anifa Marakkar
PW2 - Dr.Ahammed Shereef
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 - Dr.Sunny V Rajan
DW2 - Aruna
Cost
Nil
