DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALAPPURAM

(Present: Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

Smt. E. Ayishakutty, Member,

Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member)

Date of filing: 29-03-2008

Date of Order: 03-11-2009

C.C.No.89/09

Jayasree, W/o Muraleedharan, ) Udaya Nivas, Punnappala, )

Wandoor, Malappuram Dist. ) Complainant

)

(By Adv. K.P. Girishkumar, Malappuram) )

Vs

1. M/s Prasanthi Hitech Hospital & )

Research Centre, Manjeri. )

)

(By Adv. P.E. Rajagopal, Manjeri) )

) Opposite parties 2. Dr. Paul.J. Chalisseri (M.S.Ortho) )

Prasanthi Hitech Hospital, Manjeri. ) )

(By Adv. Ruby K. Jose, Manjeri) )

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

This is a case alleging Medical negligence against opposite parties:

1. It is the say of complainant that on 27-11-2007 she sustained injury to her right hand due to a fall. She was admitted in opposite party hospital. Second opposite party doctor advised emergency surgery with plate screw fixation as treatment for the fracture of the ulna. The surgery was done on the same day. Even though she was discharged on 24-11-2007 there was pain and oedema on the hand. She was advised physiotherapy. But her condition did not improve. On consulting second opposite party a further surgery was advised which was done on 01-3-2008. She was discharged on 06-3-2008. There was no relief for her pain and infection and oedema persisted. She continued treatment with second opposite party who advised for another surgery on the hand and this was done on 10-5-2008. She was discharged the next day. But her pain did not subside. She then underwent treatment and surgery at Al-shifa Hospital, Perintalmanna. Shew as cured by this treatment complainant alleges that she was informed from Al-shifa hospital that the infection was due to the presence of bone and mud particles inside the wound. It is her case that such infection occurred due to the negligence on the part of second opposite party who has not taken proper care during surgery.

2. After receiving the complaint as per the direction in Martin D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq the care was taken up for preliminary enquiry as to whether there is a prima facie case of medical negligence. Complainant submitted documents on her side. Case sheet was produced from opposite party hospital. As per I.A.274/08 filed by complainant the case sheet from Al-Shifa hospital was called for and there were also produced. The Forum has a panel of expert doctors of various specialties which was furnished by District Medical Officer of this District. From this panel, Dr. Mohammedkutty Kanniyan, D.Ortho., M.S.Ortho., Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Manjeri was appointed as expert. The copy of the complaint along with necessary documents were forwarded to the expert. The expert filed report dated, 11-8-2009 and is marked as Ext.C1. In this report the expert has given opinion that there is no medical negligence on the part of second opposite party. The relevant portion of Ext.C1 is

reproduced as under:

"From the operation notes of Al-Shifa hospital it is clear that they removed foreign bodies (mud) after opening the medullary cavity. It is impractical to remove all foreign bodies impacted deep inside the medullary cavity at the time of fracture without compromising the normal viable bone during the first surgery. It is not always necessary to remove part of a normal bone to clear very small foreign bodies which may lie inert lifelong.

 

Once the fracture is infected it is natural that the foreign bodies impacted deep inside the cavity is get loosened and come out through the defect and is easy to remove in later surgeries. Incidence of multiple surgeries and longer duration of recovery is common in infected fractures. In rare circumstances in spite of all measure wound may not heal at all.

As per the Documents available I could not found any medical negligence from second Respondent. He had done every thing according to the standard orthopaedic protocol in dealing an open fracture and later treating an infected fracture."

3. The expert has also stated that second opposite party was justified in doing emergency operation because surgical fixation of an open fracture after thorough wound debridement is mandatory at the earliest. He also agrees to the procedure and method adopted by second opposite party in treating the fracture. The records show that the fracture is an open type II fracture-Ulna. The main ground of allegation is that the infection occurred due to the presence of foreign bodies and that such infection even after surgery occurred only due to lack of care on the part of second opposite party doctor. But this aspect has been well explained by the expert as stated above. The case records show the detailed procedure of wound debridement done by second opposite party which has been opined by the expert to be correct and proper. In Ext.C1 it is also stated that the chance of infection is high in the complainant because of open fracture and the complainant being anemic. The case records support that the complainant had anemia and was treated by blood transfusion.

4. On the perusal of case records of both opposite party hospital and Al-Shifa hospital together with Ext.C1 report we find nothing to deviate from the opinion given by the expert. It is proved and established that there is no prima facie case of medical negligence. Hence the complaint is dismissed in limine.

Dated this 3^rd day of November, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Court Document marked : Ext.C1

Ext.C1 : Expert opinion.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER