Date of Filing:17.03.2007<br /> Date of Order: 01.04.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1009 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> G.M. Rajashekharaiah @ Rajashekar,<br /> S/o Mallaiah,<br /> Gutte, Jakkenahalli Post,<br /> Madhugiri Taluk,<br /> Tumkur District. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s Sanjay Gandhi Accidents Hospital & <br /> Research Center, IV “T” Block, Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 041.<br /> <br /> 2. The Medical Director & Administrative Officer,<br /> M/s Sanjay Gandhi Accidents Hospital & <br /> Research Center, IV “T” Block, Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 041.<br /> <br /> 3. Dr. Prakashappa,<br /> Orthopedic Surgeon<br /> M/s Sanjay Gandhi Accidents Hospital & <br /> Research Center, IV “T” Block, Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 041. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the opposite party is a well-known hospital for treatment of accident victims. Complainant was admitted to the opposite party hospital from 26/12/2004 to 7/1/2005 for treatment of the injuries sustained by him in a Road Traffic Accident. On 29/12/2004 the opposite party No.3 has conducted surgery and the complainant spent about Rs.75,000/-. At the time of discharge, opposite parties have advised the complainant to take medicines and asked him to visit the hospital after six weeks. Even after three months, the complainant was suffered from severe pain and swelling on his right leg. He consulted the local doctors. On 10/6/2005 he visited Sidharth Hospital, Tumkur. They advised to undergo for exchange nailing and bone grafting treatment. For that he spent Rs.50,000/-. The opposite party No.3 had not follow up the procedure and precautions in conducting the operation. Complainant has to undergo one more surgery for removal of exchange implants. Due to negligence of opposite party No.3 complainant suffered permanent disability. He lost his job. Opposite parties are collectively responsible for negligent action and they are liable to reimburse the medical expenses and pay damages. The complainant has sought compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- against the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. They have put in appearance. The opposite party No.3 submitted defense version stating that, the opposite parties have taken caution and care while giving treatment. The injuries sustained by the complainant in a road accident were treated and operation was conducted for Type-II compound fracture of tibia sustained by the complainant. The opposite parties have given best treatment to the complainant which is available in the hospital. The complainant has not at all turned up after operation for fallow up action it appeared that he has taken advice of somebody and got operated again with some other hospital. Type-II compound fracture of tibia, the complications are very common due to its location and nature of fracture. The patient should be very careful after operation. About 48% of cases may require second operation in Type-II compound fracture to get union of fractured bone. The complainant has not taken fallow up treatment as advised by the hospital. The opposite party cannot be held liable for negligence or deficiency of service. The opposite parties have exercised all reasonable degree of care. The complainant approached for compensation for the injuries suffered by him on the file of MACT in MVC No.657/2005. He has filed the complaint to claim more amounts from the hospital without there being any fault on the part of the hospital. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence. Likewise the opposite party No.3 Dr: Prakashappa has also filed his affidavit evidence. When the case is posted for arguments the complainant remained absent. Written argument on behalf of opposite party filed and the matter is taken for orders. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that there <br /> was deficiency in service on the part of opposite <br /> parties? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant has proved the <br /> negligence on the part of the opposite party No.3 <br /> Dr: Prakashappa?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. I have gone through the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant suffered injuries in motor vehicle accident and he was admitted to opposite parties’ hospital for treatment. X-ray was taken and he was advised to come for operation for the fracture of his right leg bones. Accordingly, on 29/12/2004 the opposite party No.3, Doctor has conducted surgery. Close implant nailing was done. The complainant was admitted to hospital on 26/12/2004 and discharged on 7/1/2005 as per the care summary and discharge record. As per the Doctor’s advise regular dressing and prescribed some tablets and advised him not to walk and come after six weeks for follow up action. The care summary and discharge card of the Sanjay Gandhi Institute does not disclose that the complainant had visited the hospital for follow up action even though he was advised to come after six weeks. Therefore, it is very clear that, no negligence on the part of the opposite party hospital can be imputed. It is not the case of the complainant that, after operation and discharge from the opposite party hospital he had visited the hospital for follow up action. Admittedly, the complainant has sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. There was compound fracture to his right tibia bone and closed implant nailing was done on 29/12/2004 in the opposite party hospital. So such kind of operation or treatment naturally requires follow up action and it requires some time for reunion of fractured bone. As per the version the injury suffered by the complainant was Type-II compound fracture of tibia bone and patient should be very careful after operation and there will be delay in union of bones and 48% of the cases may require second operation in Type-II compound fracture to get union of fractured bone. So, under this circumstance, the complainant in this case has not at all taken follow up treatment in the opposite party hospital as advised by the Doctors. Therefore, there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties’ hospital. The complainant has absolutely failed to prove the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties’ hospital. Opposite party No.3 being Orthopedic Surgeon working in the opposite party hospital has taken all the required precautions and care in treating the complainant. The complainant has not produced any expert opinion to show that the treatment given by the opposite party hospital was wrong or there was any negligence on the part of the opposite party hospital in giving such type of treatment to him. Medical profession is considered to be a noble profession. The doctors have taken all the precaution and care in treating the patients. Merely the complainant has taken treatment at Sidharth Hospital and he was admitted to Sidharth Hospital on his own accord and there was exchange of nailing with bone grafting, it does not mean that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party hospital. The discharge summary of Sidharth Hospital, Tumkur does not disclose that, the treatment given in the opposite party hospital was wrong or there was any negligence on the part of the opposite party hospital. As per the opinion of opposite party No.3 this being a case of Type-II compound fracture of tibia and the complications are common and there will be delay in union of bones and second operation is required to get the union of fractured bone. So, under these circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the complainant admitting in the Sidharth Hospital, Tumkur for further treatment. The complainant had chosen Sidharth Hospital for second operation or further treatment. Admittedly, the complainant after discharge from the opposite party hospital on 7/1/2005 has not turned up to the opposite party hospital for follow up action and treatment. Therefore, the complainant has miserably failed to establish the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party hospital. Doctors enjoy a special status in our society. Before alleging negligence on the part of the doctors in treating patient, the complainant has to establish the negligence or carelessness of the doctors in treating him by producing expert evidence. A bald allegations made against the doctor who treated the complainant does not establish the negligence on the part of the opposite party No.3. In the nature of present complaint expert evidence place a whital role, but in this case the complainant except his bald allegations, he has not been able to produce any expert evidence or substantiate his allegations against the opposite party hospital. Therefore, the complaint lodged by the complainant deserves to be dismissed. The points taken for considerations are also against the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2008.<br /> Order accordingly <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />