This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `6,20,000 as  exemplary compensation towards the medical expenses, pain and sufferings and mental agony.

          The case of the complainant is that due to pain on the right hand at the wrist of the 3 years old daughter of complainant named Vismaya was taken to the opposite party’s thirummu chikilsalayam on 11.04.2010 and opposite party after examining found that bone on the wrist was broken and suggested immediate treatment by applying some medicines on the wrist of the child and tied up with bamboo sticks and cloths and return back to complainant’s house. Before starting treatment opposite party assured complete recovery as a thirummu  chikilsa expert. But the injury on the right hand of the child was aggravated and become very serious and there found swelling on the wrist with unbearable pain. So on 16.04.2010, the child was taken to Payyannur co-operative Hospital and Dr.Damodran conducted detailed investigation and suggested to take X-ray and as per this  X-ray there was no broken bone. But the improper treatment of opposite party the injured part becomes infected and condition becomes serious. Later on enquiry it is learned that opposite party is not a qualified thirummu chikilsa vaidyan and was working as a driver in an Ayurveda Hospital. As per X-ray result, there is pus in the wrist due to clotting of blood which was because of the severe bandage made by opposite party with some spurious drugs. So the opposite party is solely responsible for the pus developed in the wrist and complications. Dr.Damodaran has advised for immediate operation and suggested to take the child to Pariyaram Medical College for immediate operation, failing which the hand has to be amputed. The complainant is belonged to poor family and worried too much for the expenses. However she arranged money by borrowing and went to Saba Hospital, Payyannur and met Dr.Ranjityh and he also advised to take the child to Pariyaram Medical College after giving an injection to reduce the swelling. Accordingly she was taken to Pariyaram Medical College and Dr.Sunil suggested immediate operation and was conducted surgery and successfully removed the pus. The surgery was conducted by removing the skin from the left thigh of the child and applied the same in the operated portion in her wrist and was discharged on 7.05.2010. There after physiotherapy was also carried out for two months, but unfortunately swelling again noticed in the wrist due to some disorder in vein and therefore 2^nd operation was also conducted on 08.11.2010. Physiotherapy is continuing even now to make the hand to the normal position and the child is unable to use 3 fingers properly and they become functionless. Now Ayurveda treatment is continuing to have a compete recovery. Due to the act of opposite party the complainant suffered so much of financial mental as well as physical hardship. So the complainant is entitled to get compensation. Hence the complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum the opposite party appeared and filed his version.

          The opposite party denies the averment that the complainant’s daughter was brought before the opposite party with complaint of pain on right hand wrist and on examination the opposite party given treatment for broken wrist and tied with Bamboo sticks and advised to return home etc. The opposite party further   denies the contention of the complainant that opposite party told that he can treat the child and assured immediate recovery and hence consented for treatment expecting complete recovery, but child’s injury on its right hand was aggravated and would become serious and the wrist became swelled and the complainant’s daughter suffered much etc. The opposite party mastered traditional thirummu from his child hood and mastered it academically from traditional gurus. He used to visit ailing person to have soothing of thirummu. The opposite party is not running any treatment centre. Who ever visit the opposite party for thirummu healing he used to issue a card to such person mentioning the cause of their worry age of such complaint, remedial measures and suggestions, since the person need time bound treatment.

          The complainant did not approach him for the thirummu healing for her daughter or anybody. The opposite party is not aware whether the complainant’s daughter was taken to Payyannur co-operative hospital and investigations done and X-ray revealed that the bone was not broken etc. The  averment that the condition of the child’s hand was worsened and  was infected due to the opposite party’s treatment  and the complainant understood that the opposite party is not a qualified thirummu chikilsa vaidyan and was only a driver   in a Ayurveda hospital etc.  are utter false  and are denied. The opposite party denies the averments and allegations that the child of the complainant was treated at Payyannur co-operative hospital and Pariyaram Medical college hospital. If it is true such things are not the result of any thirummu healing alleged to be done by the opposite party. He has not done any such treatment. The opposite party denies the allegation that due to the improper and unauthorized treatment of opposite party, the complainant was constrained to consult doctors by spending `20,000 as traveling expenses, rupees 3 lakh as medical expense and is entitled to get rupees 3 lakh for mental agony and compensation for pain and sufferings etc. The opposite party has mastered traditional thirummu healing and used to assist the ailing persons as a service and never collected any fee or remuneration for the same. So this caused much discomfort to the persons in the filed of his profession who are doing it for monetary benefits and such persons were always waiting for something which could be targeted against the opposite party and understood that the complainant become a tool in the hands of such persons and filed the complaint with the help of such persons to tarnish the reputation of opposite party in order to withdraw from thirummu healing. So there is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 and B1.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

          The complainant contended that due to the deficient service of opposite party the complainant’s  daughter’s injury  on the right hand was aggravated and wound become very serious, the wrist become swollen and the child suffered much discomfort resulting unbearable pain and has undergone two operation and  even today physiotherapy is continuing . In order to prove her case PW1 and PW2 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked. Opposite party also examined DW1, in order to disprove the case.  The opposite party contended that he has never treated the complainant’s daughter Vismaya and even not known to each other. The opposite party admits that he used to treat those persons who have minor defects athrough thirummu chikilsa. But the complainant has not produced any document to show that the opposite party had treated the complainant. The opposite party deposed before the Forum that “tcmKnIÄ¡v tcmKhpT Ft¸mgmWv htc­sX¶pT FgpXnsImSp¡pT. Hcp  ImÀUn Fsâ t]cpT  A{UÊpT print sNbvXn«p­v. AXnemWv FgpXnsImSp¡p¶Xp.”. It is true that the complainant has produced Ext.A1 to A8 document to prove that the child was treated in different hospital like Saba hospital, Pariyaram Medical college hospital and Payyanur co-operative hospital etc. More over she has produced copy of the complaints filed before Vanitha commission, Human rights Commission and Peringom Police station. But non of those documents are not helpful to prove that due to the deficient  treatment of opposite party  the complainant’s child suffered all those difficulties as contended by the complainant.

          The complainant has not even examined the doctor who had first opined that the complication was aroused due to the deficient service of opposite party. So there is no connecting link to connect the complainant’s daughter’s treatment the opposite party. So we are of the opinion that complainant failed miserably to prove the case and hence it is liable to be dismissed. No cost.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

                             Sd/-                          Sd/-

                        President                     Member   

APPENDIX         

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 & A2.Discharge card issued from Saba Hospital and

          Pariyaram Medical college Hospital

A3.    Cash bills.

A4 to A6.complaint filed before ASI, Vanitha Commission Chair

         person & Human Rights Commission

A7.  X-ray

A8.  (Prescription) Case paper issued from Payyannur co.op.

       Hospital

Exhibits for the opposite party:

B1.Copy of the complaint submitted before Vanitha Commission

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

PW2.A.K.Janardhanan

Witness examined for the opposite prty

DW1.KC.Pappachan

                                                               /forwarded by order/

                                                                 Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.