IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 18th day of May, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 18/2010 (Filed on 08.02.2010)Between:
Rejitha Anilkumar, W/o. P.J. Anilkumar, Padanilathuputhen Veedu, Njakkunilam P.O., Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Sunitha. K.K.) .... Complainant. And: Pushpagiri Medical College- Hospital, represented by its Managing Director, Pushpagiri Medical College- Hospital, Thiruvalla. (By Adv. G.M. Idiculla) .... Opposite party. ORDER Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: On 28.09.2009 complainant consulted Dr. George Thomas, Gastroentrologist of opposite party’s hospital who examined the complainant. For further examination and diognosis, he prescribed blood test and C.T. Scan. The complainant done blood test and booked for C.T. Scan to be taken on 02.10.2009 a.m. 3. On 02.10.2009 the complainant came to the opposite party’s hospital at 5 a.m. without taking food as per the instruction. But scanning had done at 01 p.m. They informed that the report will get only next day. Therefore, the complainant could not consult Dr. George Thomas even though booked earlier. The complainant again booked Dr. George Thomas for consultation on 06.10.2009 and remitted the prescribed fees. When she reached the Radiology Department for taking the C.T. Scan report, the concerned duty nurse informed that the said report is not seen found. After some time, they found the film. But on examination in computer, they found that the report is not entered in it. When complainant enquired about this, they did not disclose anything. 4. According to the complainant, the doctor’s prescription is for scanning abdomen upper. But opposite party’s claim that they conducted full body scanning and charged ` 5,400. Even though complainant waited for the report, the same has not received from them. The complainant approached Public Relation Officer of opposite party. The P.R.O. directed a duty doctor to prepare a C.T. Scan report. But he was not willing and stated that the doctor who performed the scanning and observed the images must be the competent person for preparing the report. In the absence of the said report, the complainant could not either consult the doctor or to inform the condition of her illness to the doctor. The opposite party failed to do appropriate step to find out the report and resolve the complainant’s grievances. 5. Complainant is working in VHSE and her husband is working as Head Constable in Police Department. They together came to consult doctor by taking leave from the concerned department. They came from a distant place only because of their faith in opposite party’s hospital. But opposite party’s deficiency of service caused untold miseries and damages to them. Hence this complaint for getting refund of ` 5,400 with compensation and cost. 6. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that the complainant had been a patient since February 2002 in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. She was treated for infertility and had conceived and undergone LSCS (lower segment caesarean section) in March 2003. Subsequent visits in 2007 for pregnancy and no review after January 2008. 7. According to the opposite party, the complainant attended Gastroenterology O.P. on 28.02.2009 for non-specific dyspeptic symptoms. The Gastroenterologist’s diagnosis was NUD (Non-Ulcer Dyspepsia) and probably heamangioma liver. The advised investigations including LFT and CT abdomen (probably only upper abdomen, since area of interest was the liver), CT was asked specifically to rule out heamangioma, which was good enough to confirm the diagnosis of heamangioma or exclude other SOLs (Space Occupying Lesions) like metastasis/tumors. This is the standard practice in evaluating a liver SOL (Space Occupying Lesions) on ultrasound. Gave her symptomatic medicines for dyspepsia and advised to review with reports and plan further tests like upper Gastro Intestinal endoscopy later if needed. 8. The complainant had not met the Gastroenterologist after the first visit on 28.09.2009. As per entries in the chart, there were 2 booking for Gastroenterology O.P. for 02.10.2009 and 05.10.2009, but the patient was absent on call on both days. There were no subsequent entries. Her blood tests are anyway within normal limits. The complaints are related to delay in getting C.T. done and missing report, but the same was ready. The complainant was not duly taken it. Therefore, the opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 9. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 10. Evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with certain documents. She was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. 11. Evidence of the opposite party’s consists of the oral evidence of opposite parties duty nurse along with certain documents. She was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.s.B1 to B4. After the closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 12. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. She was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the receipt of CT scan for ` 5,400 issued by opposite party. Ext.A2 is the receipt for ` 685 for blood test issued by opposite party. Ext.A3 is the pay & park receipt for ` 10 dated 2.10.09 issued by opposite party. Ext.A3(a) is the pay and park receipt for ` 10 dated 6.10.09. Ext.A3(b) is the receipt of advance booking fees of ` 10 dated 6.10.09 issued by opposite party. Ext.A4 is the copy of complaint-dated 6.10.09 given to P.R.O of opposite party. 13. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, opposite party’s duty nurse was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4. Ext.B1 is the treatment record of the complainant. Ext.B1(a) is the entry recorded by Dr. George Thomas on 2.10.09 in Page No.17 of Ext.B1. Ext.B1(b) is the entry recorded by Dr. George Thomas on 5.10.09 in Page No.17 of Ext.B1. Ext.B2 series are four films of the C.T. Scan taken on 2.10.09 at opposite party’s hospital. Ext.B3 is the C.T. scan report dated 2.10.09. Ext.B4 is the letter issued by the nursing superintendent of opposite party posting DW1 in Gastroentrology O.P. Department from 1.10.09 to 6.10.09. 14. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. Complainant’s case is that she consulted Dr. George Thomas in Gastroentrology Department of opposite party for her ailments. As per his advise she had undergone C.T scan on 2.10.09 at 1 p. Concerned officials of opposite party informed that C.T scan report will get only next day. Therefore she could not consult Dr. George Thomas even though she booked on 2.10.09. On 6.10.09 complainant again booked Dr. George Thomas. But on enquiry, it is informed from Radiology Department that C.T scan report is not prepared by the concerned duty doctor who viewed the images of scanning. The C.T. scan report is sine que non for the further consultation of Dr. George Thomas in diagnosing the diseases of the complainant. Due to the non-availability of C.T scan report; she could not consult Dr. George Thomas on 6.10.09, which caused mental agony and distress. Hence this complaint. 15. Opposite party’s contention is that complainant booked Gastroenterologist on 2.10.09 and 5.10.09, but she was absent on call on both days. With regard to the delay in getting C.T. done and missing report, their contention is that the same was ready. The complainant was not duly taken it. 16. On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is learnt that complainant paid `5,400 for C.T. scan on 2.10.09. Ext.A2 shows that she paid ` 685 for blood test. Ext.A3 shows that she paid Rs.10 for parking charges for the vehicle on 2.10.09. Ext.A3(b) shows that she paid `10 as advance booking fees for consulting the doctor on 6.10.09. Ext.A3(a) shows that she paid `10 as parking charges to the vehicle on the same day. Ext.A4 shows that complainant’s husband given a complaint regarding the non-availability of C.T scan report to P.R.O of opposite party on 6.10.09. All the said document shows that complainant was present on 6.10.09 at opposite party’s hospital but due to the non-availability of C.T scan report she could not consult Dr. George Thomas. 17. Materials on record shows that complainant consulted Dr. George Thomas, the Gastroenterologist of opposite party’s hospital on 28.9.09. As per his prescription she had undergone C.T scan on 2.10.09 and also booked for further consultation with the C.T. scan report and other clinical findings. When she was been waiting for taking C.T. scan in Radiology Department, her name was called by Dr. George Thomas for consultation. Therefore she could not consult him. The same is admitted by DW1 in her deposition which is as follows:- “Radiology Departmentþ t]mbkab¯mWv O.P. þbn hmZnbpsS t]cv hnfn¨Xv F¶v ]dbp¶Xv icnbmWv”. 18. Considering the above facts, we cannot found fault on the complainant for not consulting the doctor when he called her name at out patient Department on 2.10.09. More over, materials on record shows that the C.T. scan has done at 12.48 noon and the doctor has not called complainant’s name after 12.45 noon. It is also revealed that the C.T scan report will be ready only after four hours. From this, it can be presumed that there is no chances to get the C.T scan report within the consulting time of Dr.George Thomas on 2.10.09 in out patient department. 19. According to complainant, she booked Dr. George Thomas for 6.10.09, but C.T. scan report was not received from Radiology Department. Ext.A3(a) and A3(b) shows that she paid vehicle parking fees and advance booking fees for 6.10.09. Ext.A4 shows that her husband filed a complaint to P.R.O of opposite party on the same day. Moreover, DW1 also admitted that the complainant had made booking for 6.10.09 for consulting Dr. George Thomas. It is evident from her deposition, which is as follows:- “]n¶oSv 6.10.09þ Dr. George Thomasþs\ ImWm³ lÀPn¡mcn _p¡v sNbvXncp¶p. AX\pkcn¨v Rm³ consultingþ\p thn Snbmsf 11.10, 12.15 F¶o kab§fn hnfn¨ncp¶p”. 20. Opposite party’s contention is that complainant has booked on 2.10.09 and 5.10.09 and thereafter no subsequent entries in their records. As per Ext. B1(b) complainant has booked on 5.10.09 and 6.10.09. Complainant also admitted that she booked on 5.10.09 but not came to opposite party’s hospital for consultation. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that complainant booked on 6.10.09 and came to opposite party’s hospital and her name was called for consultation. Therefore, opposite party is bound to answer why they hide the complainant’s booking date of 6.10.09 and the non-availability of C.T scan report on that date? Is it help them from the liability of their inaction, laches and delay in making C.T scan report. 21. It is not disputed that complainant consulted Dr. George Thomas on 28.8.09 and as per advice she had done C.T scan and blood test. C.T scan report is sine que non for the diagnosis of complainant’s ailment. Without having C.T scan report there is no meaning in consultation of Dr. George Thomas. Her intention is not a mere consultation. It has already done on 28.8.09. As per doctor’s advise, she is bound to produce C.T scan for consultation. Therefore, it is seen that there is sufficient cause on the part of complainant not to see the doctor on 6.10.09 without having C.T scan report. It is evident in PW1’s deposition which is as follows:- “C.T scan report þ In«m¯Xn\memWv tUmIvSsd ImWm³ Ignbm¯sX¶p ]dªm icnbmWv”. 22. From the overall facts and circumstances, it is evident that complainant could not consult Dr. George Thomas due to the non-availability of C.T scan report, even though she paid ` 5,400. Available evidence on record shows that complainant booked Dr. George Thomas on 6.10.09 and came to opposite party’s hospital for consultation. Opposite party also admitted that C.T scan report will be given directly to the patients. It is evident in DW1’s deposition which is as follows:- “patient t\cn«mWv report hm§p¶Xv”. Therefore, if C.T. scan report is ready and available, complainant could have consulted Dr. George Thomas on 6.10.09. 23. It is pertinent to note that complainant has undergone pain and suffering during the C.T scan. She has been waiting from 5 a.m. to 1 p.m. with an empty stomach as prescribed by the concerned duty nurse. She paid Ext.A2 amount. But she cannot consult on 2.10.09 and 6.10.09 due to the non-availability of the C.T. scan report. It causes mental agony and distress to complainant. It is due to the inaction, laches and negligence on the part of opposite party. Opposite party cannot escape from their dereliction and negligence of service. It is the boundan duty of opposite party to provide C.T scan report within time for her further consultation, diagnosis and treatment. Evidence on record shows that opposite party failed to provide the same. It is a clear deficiency of service and complaint is allowable with compensation and cost. 24. In the result, complaint is allowed, thereby opposite party is directed to return Ext.A1 amount i.e. ` 5,400 (Rupees Five thousand four hundred only) with a compensation of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) and a cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only). The amount so ordered is to be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 9% interest from this date, till the realisation of the whole amount. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of May, 2011. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Rejitha Anilkumar Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Cash bill dated 2.10.09 for ` 5,400 issued by opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Cash bill dated 28.9.09 for ` 685 issued by opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Pay & park receipt dated 2.10.09 for ` 10 issued by opposite party to the complainant. A3(a) : Pay & park receipt dated 6.10.09 for ` 10 issued by opposite party to the complainant. A3(b) : Cash bill receipt of advance booking fees for ` 10 issued by opposite party to the complainant. A4 : Photocopy of complaint dated 6.10.09 sent by the complainant’s husband to the opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 : Ambily. K.K. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: B1 : Treatment record of the complainant. B1(a) : Entry recorded by Dr. George Thomas on 2.10.09 in Page No.17 of Ext.B1. B1(b) : Entry recorded by Dr. George Thomas on 5.10.09 in Page No.17 of Ext.B1. B2 series : Four films of the C.T. Scan taken on 2.10.09 at opposite party’s hospital. B3 : C.T. scan report dated 2.10.09. B4 : Letter dated 15.2.2011 issued by the Nursing Superintendent of opposite party hospital to CDRF, Pathanamthitta. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Rejitha Anilkumar, Padanilathuputhen Veedu, Njakkunilam P.O., Pathanamthitta. (2) Managing Director, Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla. (3) The Stock File. | 
