Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/101/2015

M/s.Dhayanidhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Aarpadai Veedu Medical College & Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.G.Anantha Rangan and Others

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

                                                             Complaint presented on:  09.03.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  04.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY THE 04th   DAY OF APRIL 2018

 

C.C.NO.101/2015

 

 

D. DHAYANIDHI,

S/o. Dhandapani,

828 Mariamman Koil Street,

Andipalayam,

Melpattambakkam post,

Panruti Taluk,

Cuddalore District – 607. 

                                                                                           ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. Dr. Ramachandra Du. Aarupadai Veedu,

Medical College & Hospital,

Kirumambakkam Cuddalore Main Road,

1.  

 

2. M/s. Aarupadai Veedu,

Medical College & Hospital,

Rep. by its Dean,

Kirumambakkam Cuddalore Main Road,

1.  

 

 

3. M/s. Aarupadai Veedu Medical,

College & Hospital, Pandalai Hospital,

Administrative Office,

Old No.160 New No.213 Kilpauk,

Chennai 600 010.

….Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 07.07.2015

Counsel for Complainant                       : M/s. G. Anantha Rangan, 

                                                                    A. Soundarrajan   & S. Mahendran

 

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                  : Ex-Parte (on 04.04.2016)

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties 2 & 3         : M/s. P. Madhan

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had a small wound in his right leg and the same was not healed and hence he approached the 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital on 21.07.2009 and a Doctor in charge of the 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital told the complainant that the wound was not healed due to the allergy by using chappal and further advised him to get admit in the hospital on the same day itself. As per the advice of the above Doctor the complainant took treatment as inpatient for 6 days and discharged on 26.07.2009 and further he was told that the wound would be healed after discharge.

          2.  On 16.03.2010 the complainant approached A.G Padmavathi Hospital at Puducherry, where he was scanned and reported that the complainant has no major problem. The complainant again got admitted in the 2^nd opposite party’s Hospital on 30.04.2010 and diagnosed that he has “Varicose Vein” and a minor surgery to be performed. Accordingly the complainant was performed the surgery by the 1^st opposite party on 08.05.2010 without following the pre-surgery procedures and for the same the complainant was incurred the expenses of a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The complainant got discharged on 01.06.2010 and again he got admitted on 12.11.2010 as the above wound did not heal and further the complainant undergone treatment till 13.01.2011.As the above wound was not healed even after two surgeries were performed by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant unable to work as the wound was not healed.

          3. Hence the complainant approached Government General Hospital, Chennai on 11.05.2012 where the complainant was undergone all the tests including MRI scan and diagnosed that the above wound cannot be healed since the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties wrongly diagnosed that the above wound is due to the “ Varicose Vain” and further wrongly performed the surgery for minor problem and further the Government Hospital Doctors advised that some veins are interconnected to each other from the birth of the complainant, hence he   requires a surgery and further the complainant  was advised that the above surgery would lead to either cure or loss of leg. The complainant refused to undergone the surgery.

          4. On 10.10.2012 he approached the MIOT Hospital and Doctors opined that the above wound is curable but at this stage it is possible to some extent only as the complainant underwent two wrong surgeries in the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital and further it is curable through administering of injection. Therefore the complainant got admitted on 18.10.2012 and got discharged on 19.10.2012, after administering the injection the complainant able to work till 2 months and again complainant unable to bear the pain and immediately another injection was administered, in spite of that the pain still persisted. The above 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties failed to perform the surgery with due care and caution which is nothing but deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant caused legal notice dt.26.03.2013 to the 2^nd opposite party calling upon to pay the compensation. However, the 2^nd opposite party did not reply for the same. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd & 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF

          The complaint itself is not maintainable as the case had its cause of action at Pondicherry and no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Further the opposite parties 2 and 3 submit that the case had been filed beyond the limitation period described and hence had to be dismissed inlimini for these reasons alone. The complainant was first started treatment with the 2^nd opposite party hospital on in July 2009 and had been admitted thrice till January 2011. The opposite party had never carried out any treatment to the complainant after 13.01.2011. The Third opposite party is the administrative office of the 2^nd opposite party in Chennai and there is no Hospital or clinic functioning there at any point of time by the opposite parties. In fact the complainant had fabricate documents and cooked up a story by letter allegedly dated 20.12.2014 that he had undergone treatment at the Pandalai Hospital at Kilpauk. The complainant is misusing the name of the Building which Pandalai Hospital assuming that it is a Hospital. Whereas the said building is only a leased office premises of the opposite party and the name of the building is Pandalai Hospital as there used to be a famous hospital 25 years ago at that premises. Further that hospital was closed decades ago and the premise is now an offices space.

          6. Nowhere in the complaint is stated that the complainant had undertaken treatment at kilpauk. In fact the letter dated 20.12.2014 filed as document No.7 of the typed set had not even been mentioned in the complaint. In fact the said letter was only posted on 03.02.2015 at R.A. Puram post office as shown in the cover/receipt filed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties submit that the letter itself is an afterthought sent after filing the complaint as the complaint itself was signed on 09.09.2014. The 2^nd opposite party is a Medical College & Hospital situated within the Union Territory of Pondicherry and it is the place where the treatment by the 2^nd opposite party was administered between 21.07.2009 and 13.01.2011. The opposite parties submit that no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble forum.

          7. The doctor at the First opposite party had said that the wound is due to allergy by using chappal as complete false hood. The complainant had undergone treatment between 21.07.2009 and 26.09.2009 and got discharged at his request. The second time the complainant got admitted in the hospital was on 30.04.2010 only after 7 months. The allegation that it is due faulty treatment is negated by his own averment that on 16.03.2010 he had taken a scan on 16.02.2010 at a different hospital namely A.G.Padmavathi Hospital which had disclosed he had no major problem. The copy of the scan report is not filed by the complainant for reasons best known to him.

          8. The opposite party states that the complainant came to the hospital on 30.04.2010 on his own and proper treatment was provided till he was discharged on 01.06.2010. Subsequently the complainant was admitted between 12.11.2010 to 13.01.2011. The opposite party submits that during the First admission, the complainant was treated for removal of puss cells from the wound and during the second admission he was treated for Varicose Vein and during the third time he was treated for superficial wound and was monitored till he was discharged after cure. Even according to the complaint he had visited next to Government General Hospital at chennai only on 11.05.2012 i.e after 15 months. In fact in the document No.4 of the complainant’s typeset, namely the discharge summary of the Government General Hospital, it is clearly stated that the patient has unhealed ulcer in foot for five months. It does reveal that after treatment at the opposite parties the patient was not having any wound for more than 10 months and then the wound had relapsed. The doctors who had treated are not responsible for the relapse. This would clearly show that there is no deficiency in the treatment and any further compliant on his health is inspite of the proper treatment and not due to any faulty treatment. The treatment was done in good faith by the doctors and it may cure for some body and it may relapse for somebody due to various physiological and external factors and just because the complainant had a recurrence of foot problem does not mean that the treatment is wrong more so in the absence of any iota of evidence or contra opinion from other medical experts. The complainant had not filed the discharge summary of MIOT Hospital or the expert opinion to substantiate this allegation. Hence the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.  

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

2. Whether the complaint is filed within the limitation?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

10. POINT NO :1

          Admittedly the complainant had taken treatment in the 2^nd opposite party Hospital at Pondicherry for the disease Non-Healing Ulcer on his right foot as inpatient for the period 21.07.2009 to 26.07.2009 and again he took treatment in the same Hospital for the period 12.11.2010 to 13.01.2011 for the disease Venous Ulcer Right Leg and Ex.A1 & A2 are the proof of discharge summaries for the same. The opposite parties 2 and 3 would contend that the complainant had treatment only at Pondicherry and no treatment done at the 3^rd opposite party administrative office and therefore this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The 1^st opposite party remained Ex-Parte. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties admits that the 3^rd opposite party is the administrative office for the opposite parties 1 and 2. Since the 3^rd opposite party administratively supervising the opposite parties 1 and 2 from Chennai, and the 3^rd opposite party also added as a necessary party to this complaint, we hold that the part of cause of action arose in Chennai and this forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

11. POINT NO:2

          The opposite parties 2 & 3 pleaded in their written version that the complaint is filed beyond the limitation period and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of limitation. The complainant took treatment with the 2^nd opposite party hospital in the year 2009, 2010 and January 2011. According to the opposite parties, the complainant never took treatment with them beyond 13.01.2011 in their written version. This fact was not denied by the complainant in his proof affidavit. Hence, it is held that the complainant lastly took treatment on 13.01.2011. From that date, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint within 2 years i.e, on or before 12.01.2013. The complainant wrote Ex.A7 letter dated 20.12.2014 to the 3^rd opposite party beyond limitation period. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation.

12. POINT NO:3

          Admittedly the complainant took treatment for his Right Foot Ulcer as per Ex.A1 to A3 discharge summaries issued by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant would contend that the opposite parties conducted surgeries twice and however not cured his pain and wound was also not healed and hence he went to the Government General Hospital, Chennai on 11.05.2012 where he had undergone all the test including MRI Scan and they diagnosed that the wound cannot be healed and the opposite parties 1 and 2 wrongly diagnosed as Varicose Vein and further wrongly performed surgeries for minor problem and further the veins are interconnected to each other from the birth and it requires a surgery and the said surgery would lead to either cure or loss of leg and therefore he refuse to undergo surgery and thereafter he had treatment at MIOT Hospital by administering injections and however still pain persist and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          13. According to the complainant, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have conducted wrong surgeries. Excepting mere statement of the complainant, there is no medical evidence or expert evidence adduced to accept that how the surgery is conducted by the opposite parties are wrong surgeries. Even according to the statement of the complainant he had treatment as per Ex.A4 discharge summary at Government General Hospital, Chennai and thereafter MIOT Hospital still he is having  pain on his leg. Therefore, his own statement prove that the pain cannot be cured. Hence we hold that the complainant has not proved the medical negligence committed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 and hence, it is held that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have not committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

14. POINT NO:4

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 04^th day of April 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 21.07.2009                   Discharge Summary card issued by the 2^nd

                                                     opposite party

 

Ex.A2 dated 30.04.2010                   Discharge Summary Card issued by the 2^nd

                                                     opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 13.01.2011                   Discharge Summary Card issued by the 2^nd

                                                     opposite party

 

Ex.A4 dated 11.05.2012                   Discharge Summary issued by the Govt. General

                                                     Hospital, Chennai

 

Ex.A5 dated 26.03.2013                   Legal Notice issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A6 dated 18.08.2014                   Copy of the complaint by the opposite parties to

                                                     the Police Authorities

 

Ex.A7 dated 20.12.2014                   Letter by the complainant to the  3^rd opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd & 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 20.12.2014                   complainant  letter sent to the opposite party

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      Speed Post Cover

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT