By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The sum up of the complaint is as follows.

The complainant is a construction worker. In course of her employment one of her fingers were broken and the muscles connecting the joints were dislocated. The Complainant admitted in the Opposite Party's hospital and had undergone treatment there as an inpatient in

- 2 -

the left hand of the Complainant where the injury effected plaster was applied entire arm. On removal of plaster after four weeks the Complainants become in a position not to move her fingers accepted the thump of the left hand. The Complainant again approached the Opposite Party's hospital for treatments and it was offered by them. The movements of the fingers can be reinstated by physiotherapy and it too was continued from the Opposite Party's hospital. Even after the treatments of physiotherapy for the subsequent four days there was no considerable change and the fingers became more painful and immovable. The Opposite Party again recommended physiotherapy for an another three days. There was no considerable relief in the treatment given by the Opposite Parties, as a result the Complainant had undergone treatment from Medical College Hospital, Calicut. The doctor who treated the patient advised for physiotherapy for a period of 1 ½ months and the Complainant was not in a position to continue with the treatments due to the shortage of money. How ever the Complainant continue ayurvedic and other indigenous method of treatments for recovery from immobility. The Complainant is a coolie worker the defect in the treatments of the Opposite Party made the Complainants fingers of the left hand immovable and the fingers except the thump in the left hand lost it is structures and the pain in the fingers of the left hand extended up to the shoulder. The Complainant had to spend Rs.65,000/- towards the treatment. The deficiency in service of the Opposite Party's Hospital and the defective treatment of the 2^nd Opposite Party cost injuries and the hardships to the Complainant. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to.

(a) Give the Complainant the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- .

(b) Rs.65,000/- towards the cost of treatments.

© Rs.1,00,000/- for further treatments.

(Contd.....3)

- 3 - 2. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The facts in version in short is as follows. The Complainant was treated as an out patient in connection with fracture of finger bone in left hand, the treatments availed by the Complainant is an outpatient and as a result the proper records were not maintained in the Opposite Party's hospital. The Complainant was given proper treatments. The advice of t he 2^nd Opposite Party in pursuance of the further treatment was not followed by the Complainant. It is seen from the Complaint that before completing the treatments, the Complainant went to the Vythiri Government Hospital for further treatments. The plaster administered in the left arm was removed from the Government Hospital Vythiri. The immobilization of the fingers caused is not due to the treatment of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Complainant if had undergone physiotherapy and other treatments as advised, the deformity or any other discomfort could have been relieved. It is also seen from the Complaint that the Complainant had undergone further treatment from Medical College Hospital Calicut. The advice from none of the doctors were followed by the Complainant. In case of fracture, immobilization of muscles at the site of fracture for the reunion of bone is required. The stiffness of muscles due to the restriction of movement is to be cured by the treatments of physiotherapy and it is to be a concurrent process. The Complainant herein had not kept up the advice. The allegation of the Complainant of spending Rs.65,000/- is an exaggerated sum. Similarly the Complainant is not in a position to bent the finger is also false.

3. The Opposite Parties are not aware of any other method of treatments for which the Complainant had undergone. The compensation and cost claimed by the Complainant is not supported by any evidence. The complaint is not born out from the actual facts and it is to be dismissed with cost.

(Contd.....4)

- 4 -

4. The points in consideration are.

1. Whether any deficiency is their on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit swearing the contentions, Ext.A1 to A10 are marked for the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party filed affidavit in chief, no document is produced in behalf of them.

6. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant sustained the fracture in the finger bone of left hand. The plaster applied in the left arm resulted the immobility of entire fingers in the left arm except the thump. The physiotherapy treatment availed from the 1^st Opposite Party's hospital and Medical College Hospital Calicut could not give the complainant a perfect recovery. The defective treatment of the 2^nd Opposite Party is the reason for further complications and immobilization of the fingers. In oral testimony of the Complainant it is admitted that after the application of plaster the Complainant had not gone to the 1^st Opposite Party's hospital. The removal of the plaster was done from the government Hospital Vythiri. It is seen that the Complainant had undergone physiotherapy treatments from the 1^st Opposite Party's hospital in free of cost and it was done only for four times. In the testimony of the Complainant it is also admitted that the advice from the Medical College Hospital, Calicut for the treatment of physiotherapy at least for 1 ½ months could not be continued. There also the Complainant had undergone physiotherapy only for four days. The advice of the 2^nd Opposite Party and advice of the doctor who treated from Medical College Hospital are same according to the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party, the Manager of the hospital filed chief affidavit, the doctor who treated the (Contd.....5) - 5 -

patient from 1^st Opposite Party's hospital who filed the chief affidavit but none of the Opposite Parties are cross examined by the complaint. The Complainant had undergone treatment under different doctors and none of the doctors are examined to establish the case of the Complainant. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the only expert in medical science who filed affidavit here but he too was not cross examined. The Complainant could not establish her case rendering evidence in support of their contention. We are in the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2:- The point No.1 is found against the Complainant. The detail discussion of the point No.2 is not necessary.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed there is no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 28^th February 2009