By Sri.K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the complaint is as follows.<br /> <br /> The complainant was engaged in cutting firewood. While he was employed in the work on 26.06.2003, a piece of iron was thrown out in course of his employment and it stuck at his neck. The complainant was immediately taken to the opposite party's hospital. The complainant was given treatment as out patient. The Doctor who attended the complainant, examined the wound and he was in the opinion that no iron particle was left inside the wound. The injury was stitched and the complainant was sent home. The treatment availed by the complainant was Upon payment. The stitches where removed after one week. The complainant had to suffer persistent pain at the region of injury. Again the complainant went to the hospital and told the Doctor of the pain and un-easiness on his neck. The Doctor who rendered treatment directed the complainant for an expert opinion of ENT Surgeon and an X-ray was taken on 5.7.2003. From the X-ray it came to know that a piece of iron was till inside the wound. For the removal of this foreign body the Doctor demanded huge amount. The complainant was not in a position to continue the treatment in opposite party's Hospital. He went to an another hospital that is LEO at Kalpetta. On 14.07.2003 the complainant was admitted there and the piece of iron occupied inside the body was removed in operation on 15.07.2003. The complainant had great deal of pain and difficulties due to the deficiency in service imparted by the opposite party. The Doctor who treated the complainant if showed reasonable care and caution in rendering the service the complainant would have not been subjected to such torture and pain . The lawyer notice was sent by the complainant to the opposite party demanding the compensation. Whereas the reply send to the complainant opted<br /> (Contd. . . .. .2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> baseless grounds. The first opposite party is the Manager of the hospital. The 2nd opposite<br /> Party is the Insurer. There may be a direction to the opposite parties to give Rs.5,000/- towards further treatment, for the loss of wages R.5,000/- and towards the mental shock Rs.25,000/- and to pass orders that deem fit and proper. <br /> <br /> The opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed version on their appearance. The Opposite Party No.1 contented that the complainant is not maintainable. The allegations of the complaint is absolutely baseless. No wound was sutured carelessly. The Doctor who treated the complainant had already advised to take X-ray. It was necessary to confirm that no foreign body was inside the wound . The complainant was unwilling to take X-ray and further on observation no foreign body appeared to be inside the wound. The Doctor stitched the wound on 29.6.03 and advised medicines. The complainant came to the Hospital again and that time to the complainant was advised to take X-ray. The complainant was reluctant to take X-ray then also. The complainant came to the hospital again on 01.07.2003 and afterwards on 04.7.2003. Tenderness and swelling appeared at the region of injury . The complainant was advised to consult the ENT Specialist of the same hospital. A tiny particle of a foreign body was traced at this time. The ENT doctor suggested a minor exploratory removal of the foreign particle. But instead of availing service from the hospital . The complainant went away. The allegation of the complainant that for the removal of the foreign particle, the doctor demanded huge amount is absolutely false. The reluctance on the side of the complainant to under go a minor exploratory procedure was the only reason for all the difficulties to the complainant. The complaint is to be dismissed. The averment in the complainant that the complaint is still undergoing treatment is also denied . A reply to the lawyer notice was also sent by the<br /> (Contd.........3)<br /> - 3 - <br /> complainant showing that the claim of the complainant are baseless and not a bonafide. <br /> Moreover opposite parties medical center is insured with New India Assurance<br /> Company, Kalpetta Branch, Policy No. 760604/46/02/198. In case the trust opposite parties found to be liable for compensation. The liability rests upon the 2nd opposite party, who is the insurer. The complaint is not maintainable and is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1 further contended that the complainant is not maintainable due to the non jointer of the necessary parties, upon which the 2nd Opposite Party is supplemented. Afterwards, Opposite Party No.3 is also supplemented. The Opposite party No.2 filed version on their appearance it is admitted that the professional negligence or any claim arise out of bodily injury or death of any patient due to error or omission or negligence in professional service rendered by the Opposite Party No.1 is indemnified. According to the Opposite Party No.2 indemnity limit is minimum of 1,000 maximum of 1,00,000. The condition of the policy is such that the insured shall bare for each and every claim a compulsory excess of .25%. The Opposite Party No.2 also denied the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. If any hardship cost to the Complainant it is only due to the negligence on the part of the Complainant. The Complainant is not entitled for any compensation or any cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3 filed version, it is admitted that the Complainant had undergone treatment from the hospital run by the Opposite Party No.1. The treatment given was for a small injury in front of the neck. The Complainant's wound was cleaned and he was also advised by the Opposite Party No.3 to take X-Ray. The Complainant was not ready to<br /> (Contd. . . . .. 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> take X-Ray. On observation of the wound no foreign particle was visible in side the wound.<br /> For the purpose of reviewing the wound the Complainant went to the hospital again on 01.07.2003 and thereafter on 04.07.2003 he was also complained of pain. The Complainant was referred to consult ENT Department in the same hospital and X-Ray was also taken. A foreign particle was traced inside the wound whereas the Complainant was not ready to undergo further treatment from the same hospital. The allegations in the complaint that for the removal of the foreign particle huge amount said to be claimed are baseless. The hardship cost to the Complainant is only due to the refusal on his part to take X-ray and the unreadiness to undergo exploratory procedure for removal of foreign particle. The Opposite Party No.3 had given proper treatment to the patient. The complainant is not neither entitled for any compensation nor any cost, the complaint is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> The points that are to be decided:<br /> 1.Whether the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 had done any deficiency in service?<br /> 2.Is there any valid insurance covering for the acts of Opposite Party No.1 and 3?.<br /> 3.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. The out patient card issued by the Opposite party No.1 is marked as Ext.A1. According to the Complainant he was escorted to the hospital by one Baby. The Opposite Party No.3 who examined the patient said that there is no more problems with the injury and ruled out the presence of any foreign particle inside the wound.<br /> (Contd..........5)<br /> <br /> - 5 -<br /> The wound sutured and sent the patient home. The Opposite Party No.3 was the duty doctor in the hospital when the Complainant went over there. The Ext.A5 series are the medical bills issued by the Opposite Party No.1. As per this document the Complainant availed service from the hospital from 27.6.2003 to 05.07.2003. According to the Complainant X-ray was taken on the particular day when he was advised for it. Ext.A6 shows that the Complainant took X-ray on 05.07.2003. The Complainant deposed that on the very same day of the injury he went for the consultation of the Doctor. The Doctor treated the wound and sutured it. According to the OPW1 the Complainant was not ready to take X-ray even if he was advised. It is testimonied that the Complainant refused to take X-ray. It is admittedly seen that after exploring the wound, the wound was cleaned and sutured and the Complainant was also given medicines. The Complainant availed the treatment from the hospital on 29.6.2003, 01.07.2003 and 04.07.2003 no abnormality was detected. The contention of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 that the Complainant's unwillingness to take X-ray lead to the discomfort and difficulties caused to him, the statement given in that respect is against reason and justification. OPW2 is the doctor worked as ENT consultant during that period. The Complainant was further examined by the OPW2 on 05.07.2003. It is strange to note that the foreign body had been remaining inside the wound and it was detected only after taking X- ray on 05.07.2003. It is a fact that the wound was sutured leaving the foreign body inside the wound. The OPW2 also ascertained in his testimony that if foreign body is suspected to be inside the wound and in such a condition the patient even if shows unwillingness to take X-ray the wound is not to be sutured without taking X-ray. The Complainant underwent exploration of the wound and removal of the foreign body effected only on 15.07.2003. The PW2 is the person went along with the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party's hospital. On<br /> (Contd...........6)<br /> - 6 -<br /> examination it is deposed that the wound of the Complainant was cleaned and sutured without any second thought of the presence of the foreign body inside. PW2 went along with the Complainant in two days to the hospital. The testimony of PW2 need not be disbelieved the Opposite Party No.3 had been working in the hospital of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant availed the medical treatment from the 1st Opposite Party's hospital and the service of treatment was given by the Opposite Party No.3. Grows negligence involved in the treatment of the wound especially in the vulnerable part of the Complainant's body. It is found that there is a deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite parties No.1 and 3. The point No.1 is proved against the 1st and 3rd Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> The 1st Opposite Party's hospital is insured by the Opposite Party No.2. Ext. B3 is the policy schedule which indemnify the insured for medical negligence resulting bodily injury and/ or death of any patient arise, alleged to have been caused by error, omission or negligence in professional service. Ext.B1 is marked through OPW3. The negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 covers the policy period of insurance. Ext. B2 series is the policy schedule. The negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 in rendering the service from the hospital of Opposite Party No.1 is to be indemnified by the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 is liable to meet the compensation and cost. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Contd..........7)<br /> <br /> - 7 -<br /> <br /> Point No.3:<br /> The Complainant remitted Rs. 424/- to the 1st Opposite Party's hospital towards the treatment that he availed as per Ext A5 series. The Complainant had to endure the pain and sufferings due to the negligent act of the Opposite Party No.3 for which the Complainant is to be compensated. The Complainant had been abstained from continuing his employment. For the removal of the foreign particle from the region of neck the complainant had to spend an additional amount it is just and necessary that the Complainant is to be returned the amount which is received by the Opposite Party along with the compensation and cost. The Complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,000/-. The cost of Rs.2,000/- is also to be paid to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result Opposite Party No.2 is directed to give Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) towards compensation to the Complainant along with the cost of Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand only). If the Opposite Party No.2 fail to do so within one month from the date of this order the Complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of law.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 13th day of November 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Witnesses for complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1 Raju Complainant<br /> PW2 Peter @ Baby Supervisor<br /> <br /> Witnesses for opposite parties:<br /> <br /> OPW1 Sreekanth Doctor<br /> OPW2 Mohanraj Doctor<br /> OPW3 Sindhu Saimon Asst.Manager, Aroma hospital.<br /> OPW4 K.P.Raghavan Manager New India Assurance Company. <br /> <br /> Exhibits for complainant<br /> <br /> A1 Out patient card dt: 27.06.2003.<br /> A2 Advocate Letter dt: 30.07.2003.<br /> A3 Advocate Letter dt: 18.08.2003. <br /> A4 <br /> A5 Medical Bills dt: <br /> A6 X-ray bill<br /> A7 Doctors prescription dt:<br /> A8 Series (8 in No.) Bill dt:<br /> <br /> Exhibits for opposite parties<br /> B1 ( 2 sheets) Patients history dt:<br /> B2 series ( 8 in No.) <br /> B3 Policy schedule <br /> B4 True copy of of service tax <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.