IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the 29^th day of July, 2011

Filed on 04.01.05

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)             

in

C.C.No.03/05

between

Complainant:-                                                 Opposite Parties:-

       Sri.Satheesh.M,                             1.         V.S.M. Hospital, Rep. by its Managing Director,

S/o Madhavan Pillai,                                   Dr.V.S. Viwanathan, S/o Dr.Sukumaran Pillai,

Erickal Kaleekal,                                        V.S.M. Hospital, Thattarambalam, Mavelikkara.

Nangiarkulangara .P.O.,

Haripad,                                         2.         Dr.Biju.J.Mathews, V.S.M. Hospital,

Alappuzha.                                     Thattarambalam, Mavelikkara.

      (By Adv.Sankaran Thampi)                        (By Adv.G.Unnikrishnan)

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: - The complainant consequent to an abdomen ailment approached the opposite parties for treatment. The opposite parties instructed surgical intervention to remove the stones from the pelvis. The opposite parties assured ideal treatment and absolute healing. Accordingly, the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 24^th September 2004 and the complainant was operated upon the next day. Subsequent to the said treatment, the complainant on 26^th November 2004 experienced excruciating pain, and he approached one Mr. Dr.Ravisankar. On examination, it is revealed that the stone from the complainant's pelvis was not removed. The complainant was charged heavily for the surgery by the opposite parties. The opposite parties inflicted prolonged physical and mental agony to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

1. Notices were sent. The 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties turned up and filed separate versions. The gist of the opposite parties' contention is that the opposite parties effected the treatment and surgery of the complainant with paramount care and caution reasonably expected of an experienced and qualified medical practitioner. According to the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant approached him with a USG study report dated 17^th September 2004.  The content of the said report was explained to the complainant, and the complainant was inc1ined to undergo Uretero Reno Scopy (URS). As such, the opposite parties on 24^th September 2004 conducted URS on the complainant, but the ureteric stone noted in the USG was not seen in the URS procedure as the said stone might have passed. This usual phenomenon was duly explained the patient to his satisfaction. The complainant there after was discharged on 25^th September 2004. The complainant was checked up frequently by the 2^nd opposite party. As such the complainant turned up ultimately on 28^th January 2005. Thus proper treatment was provided to the complainant, the opposite parties contend. No any unreasonable amount for surgery was charged on the complainant. The complainant is frivolous as well as experimental. The same is to be dismissed with cost the opposite parties assert.

2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and the documents Exbts. Al to A6 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the 2^nd opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbt. B1 series were marked.

3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-

(a) Whether there was negligence on the part of the opposite party?

(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4. Concededly the complainant was treated by the opposite parties. The crux of complainant's contention is that even though he was subjected to URS, it is later revealed that the stones detected USG test was not removed thereof. As to this the opposite party submits that during URS no stones detected during pre-surgery tests were seen during URS procedure.  According to the second opposite party, .the ureteric stones are prone to migrate. Holding this contention alive in mind, we anxiously perused the pleadings, affidavit, testimonies and detailed arguments placed on record by the parties. At the first blush itself of the evidence brought on record, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to let in tangible materials that substantiate or the least bit to support his contention. It is to be borne in mind that the courts or Consume Fora are not experts in medical science. We have usually to rely on the testimonies of doctors who are well conversant with such issues. We carefully went through the deposition of RW1 doctor. RW1 asserts that in similar disease stones are known to move around. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the complainant has not placed on record a scrap of evidence to substantiate the complainant case.

That apart as we have already on umpteen similar occasions observed, a medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong during reasonable course of treatment for the reasons beyond his control. He would be liable only where his, conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent doctor in the field. It is to be remembered that sometimes despite their best sincere efforts the treatment of doctors fail. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against. As we have already referred to, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, not a scrap of evidence is there on record to suggest that there was laxity or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. In the wake of the forgoing facts and findings in the above case, we regret, we are of the view that the complainant case does not merit acceptance.

In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear with their own costs.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of July, 2011.

                                                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi     

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Satheesan (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           Prescription – Dr.Appu Thomas dated, 01.02.04         

Ext. A2            -           USG of Abdomen from Oriental Diagnostic Imaging Centre dated, 25.05.04

Ext. A3            -           Medical Report issued by V.S.M. Hospital

Ext. A4 Series  -           Pharmacy Bill – V.S.M. Hospital (7Nos.)

Ext. A5            -           USG of Abdomen from Oriental Diagnostic Imaging Centre dated, 29.11.04

Ext. A6            -           Copy of the Discharge Summary

Evidence of the opposite parties:- 

RW1                -           Dr.Biji J Mathew (Witness)

Ext. B1 Series  -           Patient Record from V.S.M. Hospital

// True Copy //

    By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- P.R/-  

Compared by:-