By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint in brief is as follows.
The Complainant had an injury in the left palm and tendon of the finger was severed. The Complainant was admitted in the Opposite Party's hospital on 08.03.2003 as an inpatient. After suturing the wound the Complainant was discharged from the hospital on 11.3.2003. Even after discharge the Complainant was undergoing treatment as an outpatient from the Opposite Party's hospital. As advised by the doctor the Complainant had undergone the treatment of physiotherapy for five times within a period of two weeks. The treatment of the Opposite Party could not give an absolute recovery from the injury. The injured region sustains pain and numbness. The Complainant cannot do any work with the injured hand as it was done earlier. The treatment of the Opposite Party was defective. Being a coolie worker the Complainant had strain enough to meet the expense of treatment. The service imparted by the Opposite Party was improper and deficit. In order to reinstate the capability of the finger the Complainant had to undergo further treatments. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give the complainant Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation towards the deficiency in service including the cost.
2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the Opposite Party is as follows. The admission of the Complainant for the treatment of the injury to the index finger is admitted. Proper treatment including the expert management of the Orthopaedic Surgeon was given to the Opposite Party and discharged on 11.3.2003. The advise given to the Complainant for further treatment of physiotherapy was not followed. The statement of the complainant that he had undergone the treatmeant of physiotherapy for 5 times are only false. The allegation of the Complainant that he had undergone treatment continuously for one month and no recovery in absolute extend effected is nothing but false. There is no deficiency in service and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.
3. The points in consideration are. Whether any deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Party? Relief and cost.
4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed affidavit swearing the allegations. Ext.A1 to A4 and X1 are marked in support of their evidence. The Opposite Party filed affidavit and was examined as OPW1. 5. The allegation of the Complainant is that the tendon injury sustained by the Complainant was treated by the Opposite Party. The treatment could not give an absolute recovery from the injury sustained. The lack of caution and care in treatment resulted disability. The Complainant is not in a position to work with that hand as it was done earlier. Ext.X1 is the case sheet it details the injury and treatments. As per which the complaint has the cut of tendon in the index finger. According to the clinical note no neuro vesicular injury was found out. It is also seen that the Complainant was refered to orthopaedic surgeon for expert opinion for the treatment of the injury. The opinion of the expert cited is only from the doctor who treated the patient from the Opposite Party's hospital. It was deep incised injury and no fracture was noted at the time of examination. The primary tendon repair at local anesthesia was done on 08.3.2003. According to this witness who is examined as OPW2, the Complainant had not undergone treatment as advised by him. The opinion of this expert cannot be disregarded unless otherwise in expert opinion is drawn out in evidence. The Complainant has not brought out in evidence to establish his case that there is latches in due care and caution in the treatment offered by the Opposite Party's hospital. We are in the opinion that there is no deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Party and the Complainant has not established his case in bringing forth the evidence and the point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2: - The Complainant cannot brought out in evidence that the service rendered by the Opposite Party is deficit being the point No.1 is not in favour of the Complainant. The detail discussion of the point No.2 is not necessary.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order upon cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January 2009. PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER-I : Sd/-
MEMBER-II: Sd/- A P P E N D I X
Witnesses for the Complainant:
PW1. Ramesh. Complainant.
Witnesses for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Dr. T.P.V. Surendran, Managing Director, Leo Hospital, Kalpetta.
OPW2. Dr. Vasuki. V.R. Doctor.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Biochemical Investigations Report. dt:09.03.2003. A2. Prescription A3 (3 numbers) Cash bill. A4 (2 numbers) Bills.
X1. Case Sheet.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................P Raveendran
......................SAJI MATHEW | | 
