Date of Filing      : 10.05.2011

                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 29.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A.,B.L.,                                                            .....MEMEBR-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com.                                                                     ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.14/2011

THIS FRIDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2022

 

Mr.N.Pushparaj, S/o.Narayanan,

No.42, Namperumal Street,

Avadi, Chennai -600 054.                                                                 ……Complainant.

                                                                     //Vs//

The Director,

Sir Ivan Stedford Hospital,

Ambattur, Chennai -600 053.                                                 ..........Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                            :   Mr.Ashok Rajaraaman, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                        :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 20.07.2022 in the presence of Mr.Ashok Rajaraaman, Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence against the opposite party along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.9,75,000/-towards compensation and to repay an amount of Rs.7445/- paid by him towards the treatment charges to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The present complaint was filed by the complainant alleging medical negligence against the opposite party.  It was the case of the complainant that on 05.02.2010 he suffered severe pain and met the doctors in the opposite party’s hospital. On the same day at 12.45 pm ultra sonogram was taken and also appendicitis operation was recommended.  The opposite party had taken consent from the complainant for appendicitis operation only but Laporotomy operation was done at 2.30pm on the same day without the consent of the complainant and during operation three places in the abdomen was opened. The doctors in the opposite party’s hospital suddenly shifted the complainant from operation theatre to ICU and they kept him in the ICU for two days.  After that on 07.02.2010 he was shifted from ICU to normal ward. They did not given proper treatment to the complainant. 

 On 09.02.2010 the doctors discharged the complainant without proper stitches in the abdomen and it was said that there was no appendicitis wall in the abdomen and appendix could not be separated and hence the abdomen was closed. The complainant has paid a total amount of Rs.7445/- for the treatment. It was a great shock to the complainant that the abdomen was opened and there was severe pain and he was unable to walk and to do any work, hence he approached the Vijaya hospitals and they found that the abdomen was not properly closed and because of that infection has occurred in the abdomen and in the Vijaya hospitals proper treatment was given and the abdomen was closed. Thus aggrieved by the act of medical negligence as alleged by the complainant the present complaint was filed for the reliefs to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.9,75,000/-towards compensation and to repay an amount of Rs.7445/- paid towards the treatment charges of the complainant.

 

Defence of the opposite party:

The opposite party filed version stating that the hospital was run by AMM foundation, a charitable institution carrying on various philanthropic and charitable activities in education as well as medical fields and the opposite party is one of such non profit making organizations, rendering medical services to the poor and needy by collecting nominal charges.  It is submitted that when the complainant visited on 05.02.2010 at 11.30am complaining unbearable pain in the abdomen, the same was immediately attended by the opposite party and all the investigations were done including an ultra sound scan and it was diagnosed recurrent appendicitis.  On the same day at about 2.30pm exploratory laparatomy was done and during the process of operation the complainant developed ST depression in ECG on the cardiac monitor and the complainant’s BP continued to drop. 

 After performing exploratory laparotomy, it is found that there was an appendicular mass adherent to the posterior abdominal wall.  Appendix was covered by omentum and was attached with the posterior abdomen wall.  The appendix could not be separated.  The patient also developed ST depression in the ECG monitor which called for immediate closing of the abdominal wall and shifting of the patient for cardiac care.  Hence further efforts to separate the appendix from the appendicular mass could not be continued.  So after thorough peritioneal lavage, abdomen was closed in layers and a right loin corrugated drain was kept.  The complainant was clearly explained that due to mass formation, the appendix could not be separated and hence appendectomy could not be performed.  After the surgery the complainant was shifted to intensive care unit and was given necessary treatment and was discharged on 09.02.2010 and was advised to have normal diet and come for further review. The opposite party explained about the procedure to be followed by the complainant but the complainant failed to follow the instructions given by the opposite party’s doctors. It is denied by them that the abdomen was in open condition and because of that infection had occurred. Thus contending that the opposite party’s doctors did not discharge the complainant without proper stitches in the abdomen and no negligence and deficiency in service could be attributed to them, the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

Point for consideration:

Whether the allegation of medical negligence as alleged by the complainant against the opposite party was proved by the complainant by producing sufficient evidence and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point:

On the side of complainant the following documents were filed for complaint allegations;

The Registration slip dated 03.08.2009 was marked as Ex.A1;

Ultra Sonogram Report issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;

Bills given by the opposite party dated 03.08.2009 was marked as Ex.A3;

Photos of the complainant was marked as Ex.A4;

Legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party 10.30.2010 was marked as Ex.A5;

 Reply notice given by the opposite party dated 21.04.2010 was marked as Ex.A6;

Reports given by the VIJAYA HEALTH CENTRE was marked as Ex.A7;

Bills issued by the VIJAYA HEALTH CENTRE was marked as Ex.A8;

Examination Reports given by the Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital was marked as Ex.A9;

On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed for their contentions;

The consent letter by the complainant was marked as Ex.B1;

Inpatient case records of the complainant was marked as Ex.B2;

 The Regional Medical Board, Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai issued a report was marked as Court document (Ex.C1)

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the complainant who was admitted for removal of appendicitis with the opposite party’s hospital was made to suffer due to the negligence by the doctors of the said hospital.  It was submitted that no appendicitis was removed during the operation and it is a clear case of Res Ipsa Loquitur as the negligence was apparent.  The opposite party also failed to issue any discharge summary which shows that there was negligence in the treatments.  Further the learned counsel relied upon the photographs of the complainant showing the wound gaping and he also relied upon the treatment summary issued by the Vijaya Health Centre to show that only due to the corrective medical treatment given by them the wound gaping of the complainant got healed completely.  Hence, contending that the inner stitches were not done properly by the opposite party and the same amounted to culpable deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party he sought for the complaint to be allowed.

On the side of opposite party the learned counsel argued that the hospital was doing service at no cost and that the wound gaping at the stitches was a common complication of the surgery procedure and could not be attributed to medical negligence. He also submitted that the complainant failed to come forward for review and also failed to provide the outpatient book issued by the opposite party hospital during the treatment.  It is submitted by him that wound gaping is a well known and well documented complication of any abdominal surgery like Appendectomy.  It is submitted that regular washing and dressing will heal the wound in course of time. In some cases the healing of the wound takes place after a prolonged period of cleaning, washing and dressing even to the extent of more than a month. He also relied upon the medical report that the said report provides that there is no medical negligence by the opposite party hospital.

We perused the documents and evidences submitted by both the parties and also appreciated the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsels appearing for the complainant and the opposite party.  The main crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant was that the inner stitches was not done properly before closing the abdomen during the operation which leads to wound gaping or wound dehiscence which resulted in infection that occurred in the wound stitches and that the complainant had to get admitted in another hospital to get further treatment for closing the wound. The counsel for complainant had no specific allegation against any doctors but alleges negligence on the part of the opposite party hospital as a whole.  Thus the complainant alleges medical negligence during the exploratory laparatomy operation performed by the opposite party on 05.02.2010 in the opposite party hospital, the doctors who attended the surgery and also who treated the complainant until he was discharged from the hospital.  When medical negligence was alleged against the hospital in toto, it was the bounden duty of the opposite party hospital to discharge its liability in proving that there is no medical negligence on their part including their doctors and the treatment given to the complainant. Though it is submitted by the opposite party that wound gaping is a common complication of any abdominal surgery like Appendectomy his argument could not be accepted by this commission for the reason that the photographs of the complainant clearly proves that the stitches are opened and therefore there is nothing to conclude otherwise than to hold that his stitches at the time of exploratory laparatomy operation by the opposite party were not done properly which leads to its opening resulting in infection and other complications. 

At this juncture, the defence put forth by the opposite party if considered that at the time of surgery the complainant suffered ST depression and he was immediately moved to the ICU where he was treated and was shifted to the common ward after two days supports the allegations of the complainant that he was immediately taken out of the operation theatre and proper stitches was not done in that emergent situation.  The exact happening by way of defence was not explained by the opposite party properly.  The allegation of medical negligence by the complainant was also supported by the report given by the Vijaya Health Centre Report wherein it has been clearly stated that all the stitches were removed, wound washing done thoroughly and stitches were done on 10.02.2010.  Though the operation was done on 05.02.2010 by the opposite party, they should not to have discharged the patient without confirming that the wound stitches were healed and there is no opening or discharge of pus or blood from that area and also the patient has pain or not.  If the patient was examined properly before discharge and if found that the wound stitches are opened and has got infection the opposite party could not have discharged the patient.  Our view is supported by the version of the complainant that he was discharged suddenly by the opposite party.  Hence, this Commission comes to conclusion that the stitches are not properly done at the time of operation by the doctors who attended the surgery and also not examined him properly during discharge. Thus we hold that the stitches as alleged by the complainant was not properly done due to the emergent situation and that the opposite party has not taken proper care and caution in discharging the patient. When failed to do so, the same would clearly amounted to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The medical report (Ex.A1) relied upon by the opposite party that there is no negligence found in the treatment will not support the version of opposite party for the reason that the said report was given after the wound has been treated by the 2nd opposite party and has been completely cured as the complainant was examined on 27.01.2017 after more than a period of seven years from the date of surgery. Thus we conclude that the complainant was successful in proving that the opposite party had committed medical negligence in not putting the sutures properly at the time of exploratory laparatomy operation which resulted in wound gaping and all other complications which is a clear deficiency in service on their part.  Hence we direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.7445/- spent by the complainant for medical expenses to the complainant. For the hardship and the mental agony suffered by the complainant we order Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation which we think would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances.  We also order cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite Party a)to refund a sum of Rs.7,445/- (Rupees seven thousand four hundred forty five only) to the complainant; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant; 

d) Amount in clause (a) to be paid within four weeks failing which 9% interest will be applicable on the said amount from the date of complaint till realizations

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20th day of July 2022.

     Sd-                                                   Sd-                                                           Sd-

MEMBER-II                                    MEMBER -I                                            PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 03.08.2009 Registraton slip of opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A2 03.08.2009 Ultrasonogram Report by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 03.08.2009 Bills given by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A4 .............. Phots of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A5 10.03.2010 Legal notice sent by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A6 21.04.2010 Reply notice of the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A7 ............ Medical Records of Vijaya Hospital. Xerox

Ex.A8 ............... Prescription of Vijaya Hospital Xerox

Ex.A9 .......... Examination reports of Rajvi Gandhi General Hospital. Xerox

 

 

Document filed by the opposite party:

 

Ex.B1 05.02.2010 Consent letter by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.B2 05.02.2010

        to 09.02.2010 In- Patient case records. Xerox

Ex.C1 08.05.2017 Regional Medical Board Report. original

 

 

      Sd-                                                         Sd-                                                     Sd-

MEMBER-II                                          MEMBER-I                                       PRESIDENT