By Sri. A.A. Vijayan, President.
The complaint is filed for compensation for prescribing medicines to complainant causing allergy. The averments in the complaint are as follows.
On 21-07-2014 the complainant reached 1st opposite party hospital for taking treatment for his rheumatic ailments and consulted Dr. Moideenkutty Kurikkal and as per his direction the complainant was admitted in the hospital for four days. Even after getting discharge from the hospital, he continued the treatment .On 03-12-2014 when he reached the hospital Dr. Firoz Jenner, who was subsequently arrayed as opposite party No.2 was consulted and he examined complainant as out-patient and prescribed tablets. When complainant used those tablets rashes appeared in the mouth and also made itchiness on body, pain on his penis ,inflammation on the skin and also noticed blood in the urine. Therefore he consulted Dr. Raison chacko at Isaf Hospital, Thachampara and he opined that the above symptoms are the result of the allergy reactions of medicines taken. As per his advice complainant came to 1st opposite party’s hospital and got admitted there in on 09-12-14. After 5 days, he was discharged and he continued the treatment for about 2 months. More over though the hospital bill was forRs. 7825/-(Seven thousand eight hundred and twenty five only) they exempted that amount . On 17-02 -2015 when he approached 1st opposite party’s hospital with a complaint of pain on his legs, the Doctor who was on duty, at that time prescribed medicine and one of the medicine prescribed was Loxo 500Mg and when it was consumed itchiness started on limbs. Thus he stopped the medicines. The doctors of 1st opposite party were prescribing medicines of high dose and thus the complainant suffered Head ache , back ache knee pain erectile dysfunctions the inflammation in the mouth etc. The reason for the above reactions suffered by complainant was irresponsible treatment given by opposite party No.2 and 3. Therefore opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to complainant as the expenses incurred by him for the treatment and to pay Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh only) as compensation for erectile dysfunction.
The 1st opposite party filed version as follows. The complainant has consulted him in the medicines Outpatient Department on 19-7-14 with a history of multiple joint pain and swelling for more that 3 months. He had taken Ayurvedic and Allopathic medicine previously. He also had complaint of erectile dysfunction for last 2 years. Considering the possibilities of Rheumatoid Arthritis , Spondylo Arthropathy, the concerned doctor in the hospital prescribed tablets SAAZ-500 and tablet Rabilife and also advised the complainant to report for review with blood investigation for diagnosis of the above conditions. Since he had no much relief by taking those medicines he reached hospital for review on 21-7-14 and got admitted therein. The concerned Doctor diagnosed spondyloarthopathy which is chronic multi system disease affecting joints and ligaments. He was discharged on 24-07-14 with medications. On 6-8-14 , he again came to the hospital in the OP sections with complaint of bleeding/ rectum and joint pain. The complainant was referred to the General surgeon for bleeding/ rectum. But he did not turn up for further follow up and review. The complainant also consulted Dr. Baiju Faizal, in the medicine Out Patient Department on 03-12-14 with history of Poly Arthritis. The Rheumatologist of 1st opposite party hospital had already diagnosed the condition of the complainant as undifferentiated spondyloarthopathy in July 2014 itself and he did not report after taking medicines. On 03-12-14 Dr. Biju Faizal prescribed Hifenac –P and Rabilife. The drug erruption can be due to any drugs and nobody can predict it. The claim of complainant that he developed skin erruption and erectile dysfunction and those symptoms are the result of reaction of the above drugs is irrational. He did not have any prior history of drug allergy. No deficiency in service was committed by this opposite partiy. The treatment given to complainant is scientific and in accordance with the Medical Science. The claim for damages of complainant is exorbitant. There is no cause of action for the complainant. Thus complaint is to be dismissed.
Second opposite party filed separate version as follows. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of this opposite party. The allegations levelled against this opposite party is baseless. Complainant consulted this opposite party in OP section of the hospital on 17-2-15 with complaints of fever and cough for two days duration. On examination the complainant is found to have acute bronchitis and antibiotic medicine were prescribed. The medicine prescribed by him was tablet Levofloxacin – 500mg and that was in strict regard to accepted medical guidelines. No laboratory test is available to determine whether a particular oral medicine will be allergic to a particular patient . The above medicine is widely used by doctors for a variety of diseases. There are many reasons for allergy such as infection, external allergens or by drug allergy etc . Since complainant has consulted many doctors and different medicines were taken by him and therefore we cannot pin point which medicine caused allergy to him. It is false to say that a number of diseases developed in complainant due to high dose medicines . All reasonable skill and care were taken at the time of examining the complaint. This opposite party is an experienced medical practitioner. No deficiency is caused to the service rendered by the opposite parties. Hence complaint is to be dismissed.
At the time of filing the complaint there was only one opposite party and that was the MES Medical college Hospital. Subsequently complainant filed IA 566/2015 for impleading opposite party No.2 and 3 as the doctors who prescribed medicine to him which caused allergic reactions . That application was allowed and opposite parties No.2 and 3 were impleaded and consequential amendment was carried out. Then opposite party No.2 and 3 filed their versions but complainant filed another application IA 518/16 to delete opposite party No.3 from party array claiming that he was impleaded mistakenly. That application was also allowed and opposite party No. 3 was deleted from the party array. Therefore we are not reproducing the contentions raised by opposite party No.3 .
Complainant and opposite party No.1 and 2 filed affidavits and Ext. A1 to A6 were marked. Complainant is cross examined as PW1 .No documents were produced by opposite party. Points arise for consideration.
- Whether the treatment given to complainant by opposite party No.1 and 2 was defective as claimed.
- Whether opposite party No.2 and other doctors of opposite party No.1, who treated complainant were negligent in prescribing medicines.
- Reliefs and cost.
Point No.1 and 2
Complainant admitted himself in the complaint thathe consulted one Dr. Moideenkutty Kurikkal of 1st opposite party hospital on 21-07-14and was treated as inpatient in the hospital for four daysandtreatment was being continued even at the time of filing the complaint and he did not point out any defect in that treatment. On
-
-
at any point of time.There is no case for complainant that the medicines prescribed by them were not the medicinesfor curing his ailments.On the other hand the only complaint of complainant is thatthe medicines prescribed by the doctors of the 1st opposite party caused allergic reactions. When a doctor prescribesa particular medicine to a particular patient,he will not be able to for-see whether allergic reaction would be caused to thatpatient or not.If any allergic reaction is caused it is the duty of the patientto disclose that fact to the concerned doctor.But here evidence is lacking to prove thatwhen allergic reactions appeared in the body of complainant immediately he reported to theconcerned doctor and sought advice from him.
Though he asserted that a number of different ailments were caused to him, no medical evidence is available to prove the same.In the absence ofany conclusive evidenceto prove thatthe medicines prescribed by the doctors of the 1st opposite party hospital caused allergic reactions to complainant and in spite ofknowing that fact they negligentlytreated complainantand made him sick.Thus on the basis ofassumptionswe cannotcome tothe conclusion that, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.Hence Complainant is not entitled to any compensation from opposite parties.Points are decided accordingly.
Point No.3
On the basis of the findings on the above points we dismiss the complaint.
Dated this 30th day of April , 2018.
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Complainant – V. Pradeep.
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A6
Ext.A1 : Discharge Bill (MES Medical College Hospital, Perintalmanna) dated
24/07/2014.
Ext.A2 : Drug Prescription. (MES Medical College Hospital, Perintalmanna) dated
03/12/2014.
Ext A3 : Drug Prescription. (MES Medical College Hospital, Perintalmanna) dated
17/02/2015.
Ext A4 : Discharge summary. (MES Medical College Hospital, Perintalmanna)
Ext A5 : Case Summary and Discharge Record) (MES Medical College Hospital,
Perintalmanna)
Ext A6 : Certificate issued by Dr. Raison P. Chacko, ESAF Hospital dated 13-06-2015.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
