By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President
1. The say of the complainant is that on 28-12-2007 complainant along with his wife and son were taken to first opposite party hospital for treatment of injuries sustained in a motor bike accident. Complainant was treated as out patient. His wife and son were admitted in the E.N.T. Department and Neuro Surgery department respectively. This complaint is filed alleging negligence in the treatment rendered to his son Adilsha 3 years old, at opposite party hospital. It is stated that the son who had sustained wound on the forehead was examined at the casualty and thereafter taken to the operation theatre from where the wound was sutured and bandage applied. Complainant alleges that though the patient was admitted and treated under the care of third opposite party doctor, he did not properly attend to the patient. Antibiotics were prescribed for healing of the wound. Complainant informed third opposite party about the inflammation seen below the wound. But opposite party did not care or attend to this. It is also stated that the child was discharged on 03-01-2008 before fully recovering and being fit for discharge. On discharge he was advised to come for review on 07-01-2008 for removal of stitches. After discharge, on the same day, due to severe pain and swelling of the wound complainant took the child to Safa hospital, Kalikavu. Dr. Sini of this hospital examined the child and removed the bandage. That there was puss and blood collected in the wound. Some stitches had come out and that there was dirt and hair inside the wound. Dr. Sini dressed the wound and referred for expert management. Thereafter on 04-01-2008 the child was admitted and treated at District Hospital, Manjeri. Wound dressing was done and medicines were given for treating the infection. On 10-01-2008 the wound was again sutured. The stitches were removed on 16-01-2008. It is alleged that the wound got infected only because third opposite party did not apply proper care while cleaning the wound and suturing it. That due to this negligence complainant's son had to undergo further treatment at District Hospital. That the wound had to be sutured for the second time due to lack of care on the part of opposite parties. That complainant and his son had to undergo much pain, suffering and inconveniences. Hence this complaint claiming Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards inconveniences and hardships, Rs.15,000/- towards hospital expenses. 2. First and second opposite parties have filed the version jointly denying the allegation of medical negligence. Opposite parties admit that the wife and child of complainant were admitted and treated in first opposite party hospital for their ailments. It is stated that the doctor had applied all reasonable care and skill in diagonising the disease as well as rendering treatment. That the treatments given were in accordance with well established procedure and that third opposite party is a qualified and experienced doctor. That there is no deficiency in service and that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. 3. Third opposite party has filed a separate version where in it is admitted that complainant's son Adilsha was admitted under his care and treatment in the department of Neurosurgery of first opposite party hospital, on 28-12-2007 with history of road traffic accident. On examination the patient was conscious, oriented with left black eye. Pupils were reacting equally and normally to light. There was no focal neurological deficit. Glasgow Corna Score was 15. There was a lacerated wound 3 x 2cm on the left forehead with ½ x ½cm tissue loss and crushed edges. Pulse was 80 mts. BP 130/80 Hg. Other systems appeared normal. He was taken to operation theatre for debridement and suturing was done under local anaesthesia. Suturing was done with -3-O' black silk. Patient was given antibiotics. Every day wound was inspected and dressing was done. On 03-01-2008 the wound appeared to be healing but there was a mild swelling. The complainant wanted discharge because the mother of the patient was discharged and they wanted to attend a family function. Thus the patient was discharged on 03-01-2008 with antibiotics, analgesic and advised to come for removal of suture after 3 days. However the patient did not turn up after discharge. The allegation that opposite party was negligent in attending to the patient and in rendering proper treatment is denied. That the allegation that there was dirt and hair in the wound is cooked up with ulterior motive. That if at all there was infection it was due to the nature of the injury and not due to any negligence. The would being crushed injury had loss to tissue and injury to the artery supply which could precipitate infection. That the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs and the claims are highly exaggerated. That the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 4. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 marked for him. Opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party. 5. Points for consideration:- Whether opposite parties have committed any medical deficiency in service. If so, reliefs and costs.
6. Point (i):- At the outset it has to be stated that complainant has no case that third opposite party did not possess the requisite skill and experience to undertake the ailment presented by his son Adilsha. The allegation of medical negligence levelled against opposite parties is that the wound on the forehead (3 x 2cm) sustained by the child of the complainant was not properly cleaned and that consequently the wound became infected. The child therefore had to undergo further treatment in another hospital and also secondary suturing of the wound. It is also his case that the child was discharged even before being fit for discharge and that third opposite party did not properly attend to the patient while admitted under his care. 7. Ext.A1 discharge card shows that the child Adilsha 3 years, was admitted and treated in opposite party hospital from 28-12-2007 till 03-01-2008. Ext.A3 is the discharge card from District hospital, Manjeri where the patient was subsequently treated as inpatient from 04-01-2008 till 16-01-2008. In Ext.A3 the diagnosis noted is infected scalp wound and it is also stated that secondary suturing was done. Therefore it is brought out by records that the wound got infected and also necessitated a secondary suturing. Then the only question that arises for analysation is whether the cause of infection is the negligent act of opposite party as contended by the complainant. 8. Complainant relied on Ext.A2 which is a reference letter issued from Safa hospital. It is his say that after discharge due to severe pain and swelling the child was taken to Safa hospital. That Dr. Sini of this hospital removed the plaster, examined the wound and issued Ext.A2 letter referring the patient for expert management. Complainant deposed that at the time when the wound was examined there was dirt and hair inside the wound. In Ext.A2 it is stated that the wound is infected and that patient has been discharged from opposite party hospital without proper cleaning and dressing. Ext.A2 is in the form of a letter written in the letter head of Safa hospital, Kalikavu. Opposite party has challenged the document to be one obtained for the purpose of this case. Interestingly Ext.A2 does not even bear the name of the doctor who has issued it. Moreover, complainant has failed to examine the doctor who has issued Ext.A2. So the document cannot be relied for it's contents. 9. Even if we take into consideration Ext.A2 document from the totality of the evidence adduced by complainant the cause of infection/ground of negligence alleged is the failure to clean the wound properly. DW1 has categorically stated about the medical procedure of wound debridement done by him. This is supported by specific pleading. It is admitted that DW1 prescribed antibiotics and analgesics for healing of the wound. Complainant has no dispute with the method/procedure adopted by opposite party in treating the patient. He alleges lack of care in debridement of wound. There is absolutely no expert evidence adduced by complainant so as to contravert that opposite party has not adopted the correct medical procedure in wound debridement. Though it is alleged that there was dirt and hair inside the wound even after discharge, apart from the own testimony of complainant there is no iota of evidence to support this contention. 10. Further third opposite party who is a doctor has stated that a wound can lead to infection due to several reasons. He has stated that cut on the artery at the wound site is a cause of infection. This is supported by pleadings in para 7 of the version where it is stated that wound being a crush injury and having injury to the artery supply could precipitate infection. Thus it is sworn by an expert that the cause of infection could be the nature of the wound. For these reasons the case of the complainant that wound became infected solely due to improper cleaning is untenable and unacceptable. The further allegation that the child was discharged before recovery and being fit for discharge is denied by opposite party. It was submitted that the child was discharged on request by parents since the mother was discharged on the same day. This submission is supported by Ext.B1 case sheet. However Complainant does not dispute the discharge of mother of the child on the same day. Therefore the submission of opposite party which is supported by pleadings and Ext.B1 is more probable and acceptable. 11. In a catena of cases it has been observed by the Apex Court that negligence in the context of medical profession calls for treatment with a difference. The skill of medical practitioners differ from doctor to doctor and courts have to be slow in the attributing negligence on the part of the doctor if he has performed his duties by the accepted method/procedure in medical treatment. When a patient comes for treatment, no matter what care is applied at the hospital, there is always a risk. Simply because things did not culminate as expected the doctor and hospital cannot be held liable. 12. It is held in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab 2005 CTJ (SC) 1085 (CP) as under: “A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional.” “There is marked tendency to look for a human actor to blame for an untoward event, a tendency which is closely linked with the desire to punish. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be found to answer for it”. “One may have notions of best or ideal practice which are different from the reality of how medical practice is carried on or how the doctor functions in real life. The factors of pressig need and limited resources cannot be ruled out from consideration. Dealing with a case of medical negligence needs a deeper understanding of the practical side of medicine. The purpose of holding a professional liable for his act or omission, if negligent, is to make life safer and to eliminate the possibility of recurrence of negligence in future. The human body and medical science, both are too complex to be easily understood. To hold in favour of existence of negligence, associated with the action or inaction of a medical professional, requires an in-depth understanding of the working of a professional as also the nature of the job and of errors committed by chance, which do not necessarily involve the element of culpability”.
13. On appreciation of the facts, evidence and law laid we are unable to find any merits in the contentions raised by the complainant. It is apparent that complainant has failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. We consider that it is most unhealthy on the part of consumers to burden doctors and hospitals with litigations of such trivial allegations. 14. In the result we dismiss the complaint. We make no order as to costs.
Dated this 19th day of June, 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 : PW1 PW1 : Sadakkathulla Hikhadiri, complainant. Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A7 Ext.A1 : Discharge card from opposite party hospital. Ext.A2 : Referring letter from Safa Hospital, Kalikavu to the patient for expert management. Ext.A3 : Discharge card from District hospital, Manjeri. Ext.A4series : Cash receipts (16 Nos.) from opposite party to complainant. Ext.A5series : Cash receipts (20 Nos.) Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the Case sheet from District Hospital, Manjeri. Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the O.P. Ticket from District Hospital, Manjeri. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1 DW1 : Dr. Gnanadas. M.S., third opposite party. Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 Ext.B1 : Case sheet from opposite party hospital.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI | | 
