Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/398/2007

Mrs R.Banu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Anni Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

T.K.Ravi Kumar

04 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 05.09.2007

                                                                          Date of Order : 04.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.398/2007

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 04^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

Mrs. R. Banu,

W/o. Mr. Raman,

No.58/16, K.G. Street,

R.A. Puram,

Chenni  600 028.                                                   .. Complainant.                                                       ..Versus..

1.  M/s. Annai Hospital,

No.50, Mahalakshmi Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai  600 017.

 

2. Ms. Hema Sujatha,

Annai Hospital,

No.50, Mahalakshmi Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                               ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant              :  M/s. T.K. Ravi Kumar & another

Counsel for Opposite parties       :  M/s. S. Kumaresan & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for negligent treatment to the complainant.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant is a diabetic patient with several complications like pain and swelling of both limbs with ulcer in left thumb with swelling and pus collection.  The complainant submits that she has consulted the 2^nd opposite party with the said complications for treatment.  The 2^nd opposite party advised to take Sidha medicines and acupuncture treatment for 13 days.  Further the complainant submits that, the treatment given by the opposite party is not an appropriate treatment and the 2^nd opposite party is not a qualified person to give such treatment and acupuncture.  Further the complainant submits that, due to wrong treatment of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant was constrained to have amputation of right foot.   Further the complainant submits that, notice dated: 24.11.2006 was issued to the opposite party, for which, the 2^nd opposite party sent a telegram dated:15.01.2007.   Further the complainant submits that due to the wrong and negligent treatment of the opposite party, the complainant had lost the limb which caused great mental agony.   Hence this complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that the complaint itself is not maintainable which is opposed to public policy.   During the month of January 2006, the complainant approached the opposite parties hospital to know about the Siddha treatment.  The complainant explained her complications in detail and her inability to continue her treatment with Lifeline Multi Specialty Hospital.  The opposite parties further state that, after thorough study of the complainant and her medical records, came to know that the complainant’s position is very critical.  The complainant’s mother also died of diabetics from childhood itself.  The complainant is suffering from illness of diabetics.  Her pregnancy was wiped and diluted due to diabetics.  Her two kidneys started stop functioning.  The complainant sought for Siddha medicine for diabetics.  The 2^nd opposite party completed Siddha degree in the Tamil Nadu Government Institution namely Government Siddha Medical College, Tirunelveli affliated under Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Guindy Chennai.  Further the opposite parties state that in order to have a minimized expenditure treatment, the complainant intended to have Siddha medicine.  The said treatment and medicine provide only temporary relief.  After discharge from the hospital, the complainant has not followed the medicine and diet which leads complications and thereafter, the complainant undergone amputation with Madras Institute of Nehprology.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

 4.    The point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for the negligent treatment by the opposite party as prayed for?          

5.     On point:-

The complainant filed written arguments.  Both parties have not turned up to advance any oral arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Both parties admitted that the complainant is a diabetic patient with several complications and disorders is seen from Ex.A1 & Ex.A6 in detail.  The complainant pleaded and contended that she has consulted the 2^nd opposite party with the said complications for treatment.  The 2^nd opposite party advised to take Sidha medicines and acupuncture treatment for 13 days.  Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 are the bills for Rs.15,350/- and discharge summary respectively.  Further the complainant contended that, the treatment given by the opposite party is not an appropriate treatment and the 2^nd opposite party is not a qualified person to give such treatment and acupuncture.  But the complainant has not produced any document to prove such contention. 

6.     Further the complainant contended that, due to wrong treatment of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant was compelled to have amputation of right foot.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A6 , discharge summary for such amputation, it is apparently clear that the 2^nd opposite party has not administered any wrong treatment.  Further the contention of the complainant is that, notice dated: 24.11.2006 was issued to the opposite party, for which, the 2^nd opposite party sent a telegram dated:15.01.2007.  But the complainant has not produced any document.   Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the wrong and negligent treatment of the opposite party, the complainant had lost the limb which caused great mental agony.  The complainant is claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A6, it is very clear that the complainant had several complications and disorders which resulted the necessity of amputation.  The complainant also has not produced any Medical Literature to prove the medical negligence.  The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has not been proved by the complainant by way of expert evidence also or in the manner known to law.   Equally, the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- is imaginary.   The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint itself is not maintainable  which is opposed to public policy.   During the month of January 2006, the complainant approached the opposite party hospital to know about the Sidha treatment.  The complainant explained her complications in detail and her inability to continue her treatment with Lifeline Multi Specialty Hospital.  The opposite party further contended that, after thorough study of the complainant and her medical records, came to know that the complainant’s position is very critical.  The complainant’s mother also died of diabetics from childhood itself.  The complainant is suffering from illness of diabetics.  Her pregnancy was wiped and diluted due to diabetics.  Her two kidneys started stop functioning.   Therefore, the complainant sought for Sidha medicine for diabetics.   The 2^nd opposite party completed Sidha degree in the Tamil Nadu Government Institution namely Government Sidha Medical College, Tirunelveli affliated under Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Guindy, Chennai  which is not denied. 

7.     Further the contention of the opposite party is that in order to have a minimized expenditure treatment, the complainant intended to have Sidha medicine.  This opposite parties have given treatment as prescribed by the Siddha Literature namely “Materia Medica Vegetable Section  recognized and prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council, Volume No.1, Page No.65, volume Nos.2 & 3, Page No.418 under the heading of Cupri Sulphas” that had incorporated as stated in Tamil version to enlighten this court, how due care taken by the opposite parties. This opposite parties have given treatment as prescribed by the Siddha Literature namely:

“Materia Medica  Vegetable Section – recognized and prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council, Volume No.1, Page Nos.65, volume Nos.2 & 3, Page No.418 under the heading of Cupri Sulphas”

In Tamil version:

 

 

 

 

The said treatment and medicine provide only temporary relief.  After discharge from the hospital, the complainant has not followed the medicine and diet which leads complications and thereafter, the complainant undergone amputation with Madras Institute of Nehprology as per Ex.A6.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant has also not taken any positive steps to prove the alleged negligence of the opposite parties by way of expert evidence or any other evidence.  No Medical Literature also produced.  In Ex.A6 also, it is clear that there is no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 04^th day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	10.01.2006	Copy of certificate by Life Line Hospitals
Ex.A2	20.01.2006	Copy of discharge bill by the opposite party
Ex.A3	20.01.2006	Copy of discharge summary
Ex.A4	25.02.2006	Copy of receipt
Ex.A5	10.03.2006	Copy of receipt
Ex.A6	12.03.2006	Copy of discharge summary by Madras Institute of Nephrology

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER I                                                                      PRESIDENT