IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 89/06 (Filed on 17.04.2006) Between: Usha. K., Anandabhavanm, Nedumon P.O., Mankoottam, Pathanamthitta. .... Complainant. And: 1. Management, Maria Hospital, Adoor. (By Adv. S. Ajith Prabhav) 2. Dr. Salim.C.Eappen, Gynaecologist, Maria Hospital, Adoor. 3. Dr. Alphonsa George, Maria Hospital, Adoor. (By Adv. P.K. Mathew) .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that she was admitted at the first opposite party hospital on 19.02.2004 by the second opposite party in connection with her first delivery who is the consulting doctor of the complainant. Thereafter on 20.02.2004 at 1-21 p.m. she was subjected for caesarean. But anaesthesia and caesarean were done by the third opposite party. At that time, the second opposite party was not present at the operation theatre. The complainant had incurred an expense of Rs.20,000/- and above for medicines and other treatments. During the first 3 days after the surgery, the complainant suffered a lot due to severe pain. During that period injections were given. When the third opposite party came for visit, he told the complainant that she had fibroid in her uterus. On 27.02.2004 she was discharged from the hospital. 3. On the basis of the information regarding the fibroid, the complainant consulted Dr. Thulaseedharan, an Homoeopathic Doctor during 2005 May who had given medicines and she had consumed the said medicines about 8 months. But her stomach grows big and she felt discomfort for passing urine and constipation. So he consulted Dr. Leelamani a Gynaecologist of Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakara who diagnosed the growth of the stomach is due to a tumor after conducting scanning, instead of fibroid as informed by the third opposite party. Thereafter on 26.12.2005, the complainant was admitted at Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakara and removed the tumor on 29.12.2005. For removing the tumor, 5 doctors spent 5 hours at Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakara. During the operation, they found certain portions in her abdomen were missing and her intestine was encircled over her uterus. These information are conveyed by Dr. Leelamani and she had incurred an expense of Rs.35,000/- for the said treatments. The tumor was sent for biopsy and the result was positive. So she started her treatment at R.C.C., Thiruvananthapuram from 11.01.2006 onwards. For the treatment at R.C.C., Thiruvananthapuram, she had incurred an amount of Rs.50,000/-. All these complications are due to the negligent treatment given by the opposite parties. Moreover, the third opposite party is not qualified in surgery. Due to the negligent treatment of the opposite parties, the complainant had sustained financial loss and mental agony. Moreover, the third opposite party had used the complainant’s body as an experimental object. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for their negligence and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for the realisation of Rs.5 lakhs from the opposite parties as compensation for their deficiency in service and for their negligent treatment. 4. The first opposite party filed a version with the following contentions: The first opposite party admitted that the complainant was a patient of the first opposite party and also admitted the treatments of the complainant from 19.02.2004 in connection with her delivery. Prior to 19.02.2004 also the complainant was a patient of first opposite party for several time. On 4 consultations, the complainant was treated by the third opposite party alone and on one occasion the complainant was treated by the second and third opposite parties jointly. The complainant was patient of the Gynaecology Department. The complainant’s allegation that caesarean and anaesthesia were done by the third opposite party is false. When the complainant was taken to the operation theatre, the second opposite party was in the labour room and the caesarean and anaesthesia were done jointly by the second and third opposite parties. The allegation that the patient was screaming of pain for three days of surgery is false and she was given adequate analgesics and the complainant was administered with sedatives as she was having hypertension. The averment that the third opposite party explained the complainant about the fibroid after the surgery in the postoperative unit is not fully correct. The fibroid was detected 15 weeks before the caesarean and it was communicated to the complainant at that time itself. 5. During the caesarean, both the second and third opposite parties who are well-experienced and qualified surgeons, evaluated the fibroid and found that the fibroid was not showing signs of cancer. Hence after proper discussion, the doctors decided to leave the fibroid a few months and later to start treatment for the same. The complainant was discharged with proper advice to follow up for evaluation and treatment of the fibroid. But the complainant ignored the advice given by the doctors. The complainant neglected to follow up in the hospital and neglected the timely advise of the of the second and third opposite parties for nearly 2 years. Instead of complying the advice of the opposite parties, the complainant opted for Homoeopathic treatment and she had actually neglected the advice of the opposite parties for 2 years and this surely has paved way for all the unfortunate turns of her life for which the opposite parties are not responsible. The third opposite party is highly qualified and having 23 years of experience in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Opposite parties are not responsible to the complainant as she had neglected the advice of the opposite parties and she had not consulted or undergone any treatment from any qualified doctors for a period of 2 years from the date of discharge from the first opposite party hospital. In the circumstances, the first opposite party has not committed any negligence to the complainant. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 6. The second and third opposite parties filed version with the following contentions: They also denied the allegation of the complainant. The main contention of the second and third opposite parties is more or less the same as that of the first opposite party’s version. They also contended that the complainant had neglected their advice ‘at the time of her discharge’, for more than 2 years and the complainant alone is responsible for any complications, if any, to the complainant. The second and third opposite parties had not committed any negligence to the complainant and they are highly qualified and experienced in their field. With the above contentions, the second and third opposite parties also pray for the dismissal of the above complaint. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether the complaint can be allowed or not? 8. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B4. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 9. The Point: The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that she had undergone caesarean at the first opposite party’s hospital on 20.02.2004. The second opposite party was the consulting doctor of the complainant. But anaesthesia and caesarean was done by the third opposite party. The third opposite party is not qualified to do so. She was discharged on 27.02.2004. Due to the negligent treatment of the opposite parties, the complainant had developed complications in her uterus. Thereafter, on 26.10.2005, the complainant was admitted at Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakkara and doctors of the said hospital removed her uterus, ovary and the tumor. According to the complainant, the above said complications led to a major surgery and it was due to the negligent treatment by an unqualified doctor of the first opposite party hospital. The above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the above said deficiency. 10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is the discharge summary issued in the name of the complainant in connection with the treatment at the first opposite party hospital from 19.02.2004 to 27.02.2004. Ext.A2 is the treatment summary dated 28.03.2006 issued from the first opposite party hospital. Ext.A3 is the discharge card of Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakara in respect of the treatment of the complainant from 26.12.2005 to 05.01.2006. Ext.A4 series (A4 to A4c) are the medical bills issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the E-mail Directory Search Surname results of the Christian Medical College, Vellore. Ext.A6 is the photocopy of case summary record from R.C.C., Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.A7 series (A7 to A7b) are the medical bills issued from RCC, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of the complainant. 11. The contention of the opposite parties is that they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant in connection with her treatment. Her treatment from 19.02.2004 to 27.02.2004 was in connection with her delivery. Prior to this treatment also, the complainant was a patient of the first opposite party hospital. During the complainant’s consulting, prior to her delivery, the second opposite party diagnosed fibroid in her uterus. She was advised for further treatment after her delivery. She was also advised further treatment for the fibroid at the time of her discharge on 27.02.2004 also. But she neglected the advises given by the opposite parties which resulted further complications to her. The complainant disregarded the advice given by the opposite parties and approached an homoeo doctor at first and later she approached Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakara for her complications. She approached Vijaya Hospital after a lapse of about 2 years from the date of discharge from the first opposite party hospital. Her complications are due to the neglect of the advice of the opposite parties and hence the opposite parties are not liable or responsible to the complainant. The opposite parties also contended that they have given proper treatment when she was under their treatment. It is also contended that the first and second opposite parties are highly qualified and experienced in their field. Therefore, they argued that there is no negligence from their part. 12. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, third opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of the Course and Conduct Certificate dated 14.05.1981 from Christian Medical College, Vellore. Ext.B2 is the photocopy of the Post Graduate Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics certificate issued from Faculty of Medicine, Madras University. Ext.B3 is the photocopy of the Gazette Notification dated 15.03.1983 for changing the name of the third opposite party. Ext.B4 is the treatment records in respect of the complainant’s treatment at the first opposite party hospital. 13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have gone through the entire materials on records and found that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the treatment of the complainant at the first opposite party hospital by the second and third opposite parties from 19.02.2004 to 27.02.2004. The dispute is that third opposite party who had treated the complainant is not qualified for such a treatment and due to the treatment of the opposite parties, the complainant had developed certain complications and due to the said complications, the complainant was compelled to undergo further surgery and treatment at Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakara. The available evidence shows that the complainant approached Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakara about 2 years after the discharge from the first opposite party hospital. The materials on record do not reveal anything, which support the complainant’s allegations. Moreover, the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence for substantiating her allegations against the opposite parties. Ext.B1 and B2 show that the third opposite party is a qualified doctor. In the absence of any expert evidence, one cannot say the complication of the complainant was due to the negligent treatment of the opposite parties. In the circumstances and in the absence of any cogent evidence supporting the allegations of the complainant, we cannot find any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and hence this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Usha. K. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Discharge summary issued by the first opposite party from 19.02.2004 to 27.02.2004. A2 : Treatment summary dated 28.03.2006 issued from the first opposite party hospital. A3 : Discharge card of Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakara in respect of the treatment of the complainant from 26.12.2005 to 05.01.2006. A4, A4(a), A4(b) & A4(c) : Medical bills issued by the first opposite party hospital. A5 : E-mail Directory Search Surname results of the Christian Medical College, Vellore A6 : Photocopy of case summary record from R.C.C., Thiruvananthapuram. A7, A7(a) & A7(b) : Medical bills issued from RCC, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Dr. Alphonsa George. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Photocopy of the Course and Conduct Certificate dated 14.05.1981 from Christian Medical College, Vellore. B2 : Photocopy of the Post Graduate Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics certificate issued from Faculty of Medicine, Madras University. B3 : Photocopy of the Gazette Notification dated 15.03.1983 for changing the name of the third opposite party. B4 : Treatment records in respect of the complainant’s treatment at the first opposite party hospital. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Usha. K., Anandabhavanm, Nedumon P.O., Mankoottam, Pathanamthitta. (2) Management, Maria Hospital, Adoor. (3) Dr. Salim.C.Eappen, Gynaecologist, Maria Hospital, Adoor. (4) Dr. Alphonsa George, Maria Hospital, Adoor. (5) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
