DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 01/03/2017
CC/43/2017
Sudevan,
S/o.Andi,
Karinjilamkottil,
Koduvayur, Chittur, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. K.Siyavudheen)
Vs
- The Managing Director,
Nehdi Medical Centre,
Koduvayur
- Dr.Sreejith,
Nehdi Medicdal Centre,
Koduvayur - Opposite parties
(By Adv. K.Dhananjyan & S Mujeeb Rahman)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Gist of complaint pleadings is that the complainant suffered from foot injury on 05/07/2016 owing to a road accident and was taken to the OP Medical Centre wherein he was attended by the second opposite party. The second opposite party had sutured the wound and sent the complainant home. But immediately on the next day, 06/07/2016, he developed excruciating pain and got himself admitted to Palana Institute of Medical Science, wherein, upon inspection, it was found that the wound contained debris, pebbles and cement. These particles found way to the injury due to the negligence on the part of second opposite party. The complainant had to undergo severe pain and difficulties for a long period from 5/7/2016 till 28/7/2016. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.
- Both opposite parties filed version in similar lines contesting complaint pleadings to the effect that he had taken all care and had provided the best treatment. The infection, if any, happened due to the non following of the advice given by the second opposite party.
- Pleadings and counter pleadings give rise to the following Issues:
I. Whether the complainant succeeded in proving negligence on the part of the second opposite party?
II. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
IV. Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?
V. Any other Reliefs?
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A62. Complainant was examined as PW1. Driver of the auto rickshaw who conveyed the complainant was examined as PW2.
(ii) Opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
(iii) Chief Medical Officer of Palana Hospital was examined as CW1.
Issue No.I
5. Complaint allegation is that he met with an accident on 5/7/2016. Immediately thereon he was taken to the first opposite party hospital wherein the 2nd opposite party attended to the injury. Within a couple of hours of discharging from the 1st O.P. hospital, the complainant developed excruciating pain and he was immediately taken to Palana Institute of Medical Science and he was treated by the doctors therein. While treating the wound, the wound was found to have foul smell, filled with debris, pebble and cement. Crux of the allegation is that the wound got infected and the complainant had to undergo intense suffering and expend huge amounts of money owing to the failure of the 2nd opposite party doctor in cleaning the wound.
6. In support of his contentions, the complainant relied on Ext. A7, a referral letter issued from the treating doctor in Palana hospital and the deposition of CW1, the Chief Medical officer of Palana Hospital, who was summoned to prove Ext. A7, in the absence of the treating doctor who issued Ext. A7. Contents of Ext. A7 go to show that the wound contained foreign particles and that it was contaminated.
7. While we appreciate the fact that the complainant had produced voluminous documents and has adduced oral evidence by 3 witnesses, we are also not blind to one glaring aspect.
Eventhough the version pleadings does not reveal much, Ext. A2, a reply notice which was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties, reveal a clearer picture. Contentions in Ext. A2 is that the complainant had approached the O.P.s in an inebriated stage and that after suturing, there was rain and the complainant had driven a bike ignoring the advice of the 2nd O.P. to go by an auto-rikshaw. Ext. A3 is the discharge summary issued from O.P.1 hospital. Treatment carried out as stated in Ext. A3 is not contested by the complainant.
8. PW2 is an auto-rikshaw driver who allegedly drove the complainant home after discharge from the O.P.1 hospital. Though he was not subjected to in-depth cross examination, PW1 was examined to prove that the complainant had in fact adhered to the advice given by the 2nd O.P.
9. Any doctor, or any layman for that matter, is aware of the fact that a wound will have to be cleaned before undertaking its cleaning and suturing. This is not a matter which is so complex or time consuming or a link so down a chain of process so as to escape attention. In fact Ext. A3 shows that the wound was cleaned. Cleansing of a wound is so cardinal and the first link in the chain of action in treating a wound. This is the first step taken by any medical professional upon a patient approaching him/him. Herein, we are not referring to a couple of speck of dirt, but to dirt, cement and pebbles. Even as per pleadings and evidence adduced we find that immediately on the next day the wound was found to be filled with the debris, pebbles and cement and was in a contaminated stage. The alleged RTA was on 5.7.2016. We are talking about the incidents of 6/7/2016.
10. We are unable to digest the contention of the complainant that the second opposite party had failed to clean the wound before resorting to suturing. No doctor would ignore clearing and cleaning a wound for the sole reason that this procedure initiates the treatment process and lays the foundation for healing.
11. What makes it difficult to appreciate the contentions of the complainant is that immediately after the treatment in first opposite party hospital, he was discharged and the complainant went home.
Nothing is forthcoming as to what happened in between the time of his discharge till his admission in Palana Hospital. Had the complaint been an inpatient in first opposite party hospital, the entire case would have been different. But the complainant had left the hospital and travelled from the hospital to his place of residence. What happened during these times is not explained and left to imagination.
Thus we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to conclusively prove his case that the 2nd opposite party had failed to clean his would before suturing the wound. The voluminous evidence adduced by the complainant is not enough to bridge this gap. Complainant’s evidence fails to weigh the balance in his favour or to assist this Commission to come to a conclusion of deficiency in service even upon preponderance of probabilities.
Issue No.II
12. Resultantly we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Issue Nos.III & IV
13. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed. The complainant is not entitled any of the reliefs sought for.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 30th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of lawyers notice dated 17/9/2016.
Ext.A2 - Original of reply notice dated 1/11/2016
Ext.A3 - Original discharge summary issued by OP1 hospital
Ext.A4 – Medical prescription dated 6/7/16
Ext.A5 – IP medicine prescription of Sudevan issued by Palana Hospital
Ext.A6 - Medical prescription dated 6/7/16
Ext.A7 – Letter dated 7/7/16 addressed to Plastic Surgeon issued by Palana Hospital,
Ext.A8 – Bill No.29932 dated 6/7/16
Ext.A9 – Bill No.49461 dated 6/7/16
Ext.A10 – Bill No.49769 dated 6/7/16
Ext.A11 – Bill No.49664 dated 6/7/16
Ext.A12– Bill No.49463 dated 6/7/16
Ext.A13 – Bill No.49572 dated 6/7/16
Ext.A14 – Bill No.2554 dated 7/7/16
Ext.A15 – Bill No.49858 dated 7/7/16
Ext.A16 – Bill No.PHB0290034 dated 7/7/16
Ext.A17 – Bill No.PHB0288611 dated 7/7/16
Ext.A18 – Bill No.PHB0293266 dated 8/7/16
Ext.A19 – Bill No.PHB0292393 dated 8/7/16
Ext.A20 – Bill No.PHB0292398 dated 8/7/16
Ext.A21 – Bill No.PHB0295850 dated 9/7/16
Ext.A22 – Bill No.PHB0298501 dated 10/7/16
Ext.A23 – Bill No.PHB0297418 dated 10/7/16
Ext.A24 – Bill No.PHB0301167 dated 11/7/16
Ext.A25 – Bill No.PHB0303241 dated 12/7/16
Ext.A26 – Bill No.PHB0303410 dated 12/7/16
Ext.A27 – Bill No.PHB0304601 dated 12/7/16
Ext.A28 – Receipt No.23387 dated 6/7/16
Ext.A29 – Bill No.PHB0306773 dated 13/7/16
Ext.A30 – Bill No.PHB0312869 dated 14/7/16
Ext.A31 – Bill No.PHB0314879 dated 15/7/16
Ext.A32 – Bill No.PHB0312890 dated 15/7/16
Ext.A33 – Bill No.PHB0318315 dated 16/7/16
Ext.A34 – Bill No.PHB0320706 dated 17/7/16
Ext.A35 – Bill No.PHB0323647 dated 18/7/16
Ext.A36 – Bill No.PHB0323845 dated 18/7/16
Ext.A37 – Bill No.PHB0327043 dated 19/7/16
Ext.A38 – Bill No.PHB0330514 dated 20/7/16
Ext.A39 – Bill No.PHB0330419 dated 20/7/16
Ext.A40 – Bill No.PHB0333525 dated 21/7/16
Ext.A41 – Bill No.PHB0337301 dated 22/7/16
Ext.A42 – Bill No.PHB0338233 dated 22/7/16
Ext.A43 – Bill No.PHB0340535 dated 23/7/16
Ext.A44 – Bill No.PHB0342845 dated 24/7/16
Ext.A45 – Bill No.PHB0345596 dated 25/7/16
Ext.A46 – Bill No.PHB0349194 dated 24/7/16
Ext.A47 – Bill No.PHB0353233 dated 27/7/16
Ext.A48 – Bill No.PHB0356308 dated 28/7/16
Ext.A49 – Bill No.PHB0357468 dated 28/7/16
Ext.A50 – Bill No.20851 dated 28/7/16
Ext.A51 – Bill No.PHB0287664 dated 07/7/16
Ext.A52 – Bill No.PHB0287974 dated 7/7/16
Ext.A53series – IP Bill detailed dated 28/7/16
Ext.A54 – Outpatient receipt No.OPR0528122 dated 4/8/16
Ext.A55 – Outpatient token No.13 dated 4/8/16
Ext.A56 – Outpatient token No.4 dated 4/8/16
Ext.A57 – Outpatient token No.33 dated 7/7/16
Ext.A58 – Outpatient token dated (not legible)
Ext.A59 - Bill No.PHB0407400 dated 13/8/16
Ext.A60 - Bill No.PHB0407360 dated 13/8/16
Ext.A61 – Bill No.49780 dated 6/7/16
Ext.A62 – Bill No.23495 dated 13/8/16
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 – Sudevan (Complainant)
PW2 – Ajithkumar
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness:
CW1 – Dr.Venkitakrishnan, CMO Palana Hospital
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
