Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/484/2010

S.SRINIVASAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.A.N. LOGANATHAN - Opp.Party(s)

R. DHANA LAKSHMI

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI              PRESIDENT

                                                           THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                                                JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                           TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.484/2010

(Against the order in CC.No.9/2007, dated 10.07.2009 on the file of DCDRF, Erode)

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF MARCH 2015

Mr.S.Srinivasan,

S/o.Subramaniam,

Varnapuram,

Bhavani,                                                         M/s.R.Dhanalakshmi                                                     

Erode District                                            Counsel for Appellant /Complainant

                                 -vs-

Dr.M.A.N.Loganathan,

Orthopedic Hospital,                                        M/s.Anand, Abdul & Vinodh

412, Mettur Main Road                                    Counsel for Respondent /

Near SBI, Bhavani 638 301.                                                      Opposite party

          The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant /complainant filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.9/2007, dated 10.07.2009. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.02.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.       The complainant working as a labourer when he was engaged in loosing work on 21.3.2006 fell down from the roof of the building and thereby he sustained injuries in his 3^rd finger and crushed injury in the top of his 1^st finger and fracture on the 2^nd finger in his left hand. For the above injuries he approached before the opposite party for treatment.  After the treatment by the opposite party the complainant came to one Dr.Natesan, at Erode on 24.3.2006 as soon as he was discharged by the opposite party. Dr.N.Natesan amputated the gangrenous part of the complainant’s 2^nd finger by surgery in his hospital and administered medicine to him.  The complainant alleged due to negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party the above said finger has to be amputated caused the complainant to suffer mentally and monetarily and claimed compensation filed this complaint before the District Forum.

3.       The opposite party denied the allegations stating that the patient was advised for amputation when he came for treatment with crushed injuries of the fingers and inspite of the advice the brother of the complainant who had seen the injuries in the operation theatre itself not given consent for amputation immediately and requested to suture the injury for the time being in order to see the progress if any, if necessary to amputate the same after some time and thereby the opposite party had given best treatment by following the ‘K’ wire process and thereby no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       On the basis of both sides materials after an enquiry the District Forum accepting the contentions of the opposite party and observing the complainant has not proved the negligence and deficiency against the opposite party by way of an expert opinion and thereby dismissed the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complainant without taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances even though the respondent / opposite party well aware of the injuries need immediate care and attention, but simply blaming the appellant’s brother for not giving consent and thereby the doctor acted in such a negligence manner and thereby the appeal is to be allowed by allowing the complaint.

6.       We have heard both sides arguments, contentions and careful consideration was given on the materials placed before us.  It is not in dispute that the complainant had sustained crushed injuries in 3 fingers in the left hand due to fall down from the building while he was in work and he approached the opposite party for treatment where he was given treatment by the opposite party in the middle finger the finger was made set right by way of debridement ‘K’ wire process under anesthesia as per document Ex.A1 and B1 to B3 medical records of the opposite party.  The opposite party contended that even though the second finger needed amputation in view of the gangrenous the consent given by the complainant’s brother not opting for amputation immediately and only for dressing with necessary sutures was done by the opposite party and thereby the opposite party blamed the complainant’s side for not amputating of the fingers immediately which subsequently developed gangrenous with force to amputation by Dr.S.Natesan, as per Discharge summary details under Ex.A5.  On perusal of the document under Ex.A5 in which under the Head “injuries” it is mentioned as follows :

          “1.Wedge compression fracture D12 vertena

          2.Amputation of TPN of the Left middle finger

          3.Crush injury TPN of Index finger.

Treatment :

          On 26.3.2006 under general anesthesia amputation of middle finger at TPN level done and shotening closure done.  Crush injury TPN of index finger fixed with Kwires.

          Fracture D12 Vertebra treated with conservative management.”

From these it is clear that the finger was removed due to formation of the gangrenous which could have been avoided if the proper treatment was given at the earliest point of time.  On perusal of the Document Ex.A5 and B1, the injury was sustained on 21.3.2006 on which date the complainant was admitted with the opposite party and he was there as patient till 24.3.2006 as per document under Ex.B3 and at the LKM Hospital under Dr.S.Natesan he was admitted on the very same day after discharge from the opposite party hospital on 24.3.2006 itself and he was operated on 26.3.2006 and was in the hospital for 10 days and discharged on 4.4.2006 while taking into consideration of this relevant period from 21.3.2006 till removal of finger on 26.3.2006 within the period of 6 days if the amputation was advised at the earliest point of time on 21.3.2006 itself, the complainant would not have suffered so much of problems and on perusal of Ex.B3 discharge summary issued by the opposite party it is mentioned as follows:

          “The middle finger was crushed severely.  The distel portion was hanging with a small skin… The middle phalanx was severely comminuted.  There was no sensation in the distel part.  Considering the impending gangrene primary ampution was advised.

          Patient attenders did not want ampution and they wanted to wait to see any improvement in circulation in course of time.  Primary debrima / kwire fixation of middle phalanx and suturing of the skin and soft tissue were done under anaesthesia.

          The finger becomes gangrenous and the patient attenders want to shift the patient to Salem.”

Under the last two lines it is mentioned that The finger becomes gangrenous and the patient attenders want to shift the patient to Salem.”  From this details it is clear that the opposite party is well aware even at the earliest point of time that the treatment was required by way of amputation which was not done stating the reason since the complainant’ brother has not given consent for the same as per the document under Ex.B3 and thereby shifting blame on the patient.  Though the patient or his attenders may not aware of the consequences of not giving proper treatment in proper time and manner not willing to do the same it is the bounden duty of the medical officer or doctor to advise properly for such treatment desired to be given and in this case for shifting up the burden for such course of advise or treatment to the patient is not acceptable as being prudent doctor having knowledge and expedite in such orthopaedic simply because of patient’s refusal for consent he cannot escape his liability in performing the required duty as a duty bound medical practioner expected to do the service in such a prudent manner.

7.       The opposite party relied upon various rulings reported in

1. II (2009) CPJ 48 (SC) in the case of C.P.Sreekumar (Dr) –vs- Ramanujam,

2. III (2009) CPJ 189 in the case of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkotta,

3. 2008 (2) CPR 24 in the case of Smt.Naseem Begam –vs- Dr.Laxmi Narain Arora and another and

4. 2004 (2) CPT 127 at special page 138 in the case of Achutrao Haribhau Khoduva and others –vs- State of Maharashstra & others.

Those rulings relates to the performance of duties of doctor to perform his duty acts in a manner which acceptable to the medical profession and the court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence.  But as per our case as the patient’s second finger having add such a bad nature of condition to be needed treatment for amputation which was not done by the opposite party even though when he has well aware of the same to be done immediately and only at the request of the patient’s attenders failed to perform the same and instead dressed up the fingers by process of ‘K’ wire under anesthesia which shows that there was negligence and wrong treatment done by the opposite party knowing fully well aware of nature of proper course of treatment, he ought not to have given such treatment but by advice to the patient for the proper course of treatment to be carried by himself or by other institutions and thereby we are of the view that there was negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite party in giving treatment at initial stage to the complainant  which lead  to subsequent  treatment  and mental agony and ordeal to the complainant by spending further expenses at L.K.M. Hospital under the care of Dr.S.Natesan, where the finger was amputated due to gangrenous formation which should have performed by the opposite party himself at the earliest point of time even at the beginning and thereby we hold that there is negligence and wrongful treatment given by the opposite party which was not considered by the District Forum but simply observed that there was no expert opinion or evidence in this case which is not necessary when the opposite party himself admitted in their records in the course of treatment that amputation was required.  In those circumstances, finding of the District Forum is erroneous which is liable to be set aside by allowing the complaint.  The complainant in his complaint prayed for the direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation even though claiming under various heads to the extent of Rs.15,94,053/- including the compensation for pain and suffering and restricting the claim for Rs.10,00,000/-.  While considering the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant in the legal notice under Ex.A7 claimed expenses of medical for Rs.16,053/-, Compensation for amputation and loss of income for Rs.66,000/- and future income due to amputation loss of Rs.15,12,000/- and considering the claim since the claim is only against the deficiency and negligence and future loss of income, in those circumstances we are of the view since the complainant was forced to spend for further sum at LKM Hospital as per Ex.A6 series and since already the opposite party has given treatment at the earliest point of time ended as wrong treatment due to that negligence  we  are  of  the view that awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- being compensation for sufferings of the complainant would justify the claim accordingly to that extent alone the complaint is to be allowed and thereby

          In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.  The complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed

1. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and stress caused to the complainant in giving wrong treatment and also
2. to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs.
3. The directions shall be complied within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                       A.K.ANNAMALAI                      R.REGUPATHI

    MEMBER                                  (J) MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

INDEX; YES / NO

VL/D;/PJM/ MEDICAL