DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 17/04/2015
CC/55/2015
Mohanan,
S/o. K. Gopalan, Thekkumpuram House,
Melarcode Post, Alathur, Palakkad – 678 703 - Complainant
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)
Vs
1. M/s.Crescent Hospital,
Alathur, Palakkad – 678 541.
2. M/s.Crescent Hospital,
Alathur, Palakkad – 678 541
Rep.by its Managing Director
3. Dr.Sivakumar MBBS, MS
Orthopeadic Surgeon, Crescent Hospital,
Alathur, Palakkad – 678 541.
4. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Soorya Complex, Mission High School Junction,
T.B. Road, Palakkad.
5. M/s.Crescent Medical Centre Ltd.,
Alathur, Palakkad – 678 541 - Opposite parties
(OPs 1 to 3 & 5 by Adv. M. Ali Muthu,
OP4 by Adv.P.Prasad)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
1. Per complainant, he suffered a crush injury to his left big toe owing to fall of a tree branch on 10/08/2014. He approached the opposite party hospital and consulted the 3rd opposite party. After brief explanation of the treatment, the pleadings state that instead of subsiding, the pain aggravated. Instead of looking into the cause of pain, the 3rd opposite party continued with the treatment. He finally visited the 3rd Opposite party doctor on 29/08/2014. As the pain became intense, the complainant visited Jubilee Mission MCH and underwent surgery and was admitted there for about one month. He had to expend huge amounts and undergo intense physical pain and suffering owing to the treatment he under-went in opposite party hospital under the 3rd opposite party. The complainant highlights three counts of deficiency in service (among others) (1) Lack of proper evaluation and diagnosis of the wound; (2) Failure of 3rd opposite party to refer the complainant to a centre with better facilities even after complaining about incessant pain; and (3) Misleading of the complainant by informing him that everything was safe when the 3rd opposite party was aware of the deteriorating condition of the complainant.
Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed seeking reimbursement of the amounts expended by the complainant at Jubilee Mission MCH and for compensation for his sufferings and for cost of these proceedings.
2. Initially only opposite parties 1 to 3 were impleaded. Thereafter opposite parties 4 and 5 also were impleaded. Opposite party 4 is the insurer of the 1st opposite party hospital and 5th opposite party is the statutory person having control over the affairs of the 1st opposite party hospital. Subsequently opposite party 5 was set ex-parte.
3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version refuting complaint allegations. Their allegations, abridged, are that the complication arose out of the carelessness on the part of the complainant and owing to the complainant’s refusal to comply with the advice of the treating doctors. The opposite party doctor had directed the complainant to get admitted to the hospital considering the fact that he was a diabetic patient. As he informed his unwillingness to stay in-patient, and to have his feet rendered immobile in Plaster of Paris cast, his toe was tied to the adjacent finger with advice not to exert pressure. The complainant had failed to comply with the advice given by the 3rd opposite party hospital by exerting weight. Surgery could be carried out only if diabetes subsided in its intensity. The complainant did not consume the doubled dose of medicine for diabetes as advised. The opposite parties 1 to 3 has further detailed the treatment carried out along with observations made in the treatment chart pertaining to the complainant.
Opposite party 5 also filed version in the same lines, but without detailing the treatment rendered to the complainant. Opposite party 4 filed a formal version, without touching upon any of the complaint pleadings specifically.
4. The following issues arise for consideration:
1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 in rendering treatment to the complainant ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of other Opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
4. Reliefs, if any?
5. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documentary evidence comprised of Exhibits A1 to A3. Witness for opposite parties 1 to 3 was examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked on the part of opposite party. Report of panel of experts constituted under the behest of the complainant is marked as Ext. X1.
Issue No. 1
6. The complainant filed the complaint seeking compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party doctor in treating the crush injury. As already stated supra, the complainant is aggrieved by the 3 following deficiencies, namely (1) Lack of proper evaluation and diagnosis of the wound; (2) Failure of 3rd opposite party to refer the complainant to a centre with better facilities even after complaining about incessant pain; and (3) Misleading of the complainant by informing him that everything was safe when the 3rd opposite party was aware of the deteriorating condition of the complainant.
7. In order to prove his allegations, it was incumbent upon the complainant to adduce documentary or expert evidence. Documentary evidence on the part of the complainant comprised of Exts. A1 to A3.
Ext. A1 and Ext. A2 are the discharge summary and treatment records issued from Jubilee Memorial MCH. Ext. A3(series) is a set of bills issued from opposite party hospital. Eventhough Ext. A1 shows that the left toe was suffering from ulcer and tendon was visible and subsequently disarticulation of toe was carried out, this document would not show that there is any negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party.
8. It is true that a reading of Exts. A1 and 2 would show that while approaching Jubilee Memorial MCH, the complainant’s feet was ulcerated and that the complainant was under treatment for 3 weeks.
By a layman’s perspective we can jump to a conclusion that the treatment rendered to the complainant was lacking in expertise expected of an expert as the 3rd opposite party. But unfortunately, we are not having the luxury of jumping to such a hasty conclusion and are bound by evidence adduced by parties. The complainant has failed to adduce evidence of experts who can vouch for him and depose that there is deficiency in service on the part of the treating doctor.
9. Ext. X1 is the report submitted by a panel of experts showing the extent of handicap suffered by the complainant post his surgery. This document also does not attribute any negligence to the 3rd opposite party.
10. As O.P.3 was not available, Dr. Lekha V.R., who treated the complainant for two days and an expert in the field, was examined as DW1. She has an experience of 13 years. She has deposed with regard to the treatment rendered by the opposite party 3 as follows:
(Page 8 lines 2 to 15) “ According to me there is no negligence on the part of opposite party 1 to 3. When a patient is diabetic healing process will be delayed. He was not taking medicine for diabetes as advised by doctors properly. He was not willing for admission for diabetes control which was advised. He was advised rest with foot end elevated but he was walking hence there was oedema on the foot. He was not willing POP immobilization which was advised on review. Hence, lapses is on the part of the patient and not on the hospital”.
The expert witness has stated that there are no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. She attributes worsening of the complainant’s conditions to the unwillingness on the part of the complainant to adhere to the advice of the 3rd opposite party doctor.
11. In order to discredit DW1, counsel for complainant cross examined DW1. The entire testimony resulting from cross of the complainant is as follows:
(Page 8 lines 15 to 23, Page 9 lines 1 to 4) “I am RMO of the Crescent Hospital. I have seen the patient only for two days. Most of the occasions he was treated by Dr.Sivakumar. I am not in a position to state what transpired with Dr.Sivakumar and the complainant. I stated only what I could understand from Ext.B1. From perusing Ext.B1 I can’t state that the complainant was referred for higher expert treatment. I deny the suggestion that OP3 was negligent in treating the complainant”.
Assailing the competency of DW1, relying on the testimony above, counsel for complainant argued that as DW1 had not treated complainant, she is not in a position to adduce evidence for and on behalf of opposite party 3 and opine as to the nature of treatment rendered.
It is true that DW1 has got no first hand or direct knowledge of the treatment rendered to the complainant, but we cannot overlook her expertise and her capacity to understand the nature of treatment rendered by perusing Ext. B1. Even the complainant has no dispute regarding the professional competency of DW1. Furthermore the complainant has not tried to bring out any inconsistencies, if any, in Ext. B1 treatment records, by way of cross examining the expert on the contents in the treatment records. Except for a suggestion to the fact that the DW1 has no direct knowledge regarding the treatment rendered to the complainant, the complainant has not put any question based on Ext. B1 to DW1 on the treatment rendered on a day-to-day basis so as to bring out any imperfection, inadequacy or lapse on the part of the 3rd opposite party doctor pointing to deficiency in service on the part of the doctor.
Therefore, we hold that DW1 has rendered her opinion after going through and after understanding fully well the nature of treatment rendered by opposite party 3.
12. Complainant could have examined the expert doctor who treated him at Jubilee Memorial MCH, who could have deposed if there was any negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party. The only presumption that can be arrived at would be that the complainant let off the treating doctor in Jubilee Memorial MCH as expert’s opinion also would not supplement the complainant’s case.
13. Incidentally, the complaint is conspicuously silent when it comes to the part where he is a chronic diabetic patient. A reading of the complaint pleadings without referring to the version of opposite parties 1 to 3 would misguide one to come to a conclusion that the complainant is a healthy person with no other ill-health whatsoever. The complainant has willfully sought to down play this vital plea in his complaint.
Thus the complainant has failed to prove his allegations of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party 3.
Issue no. 2
14. In view of the discussion above, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5.
Issue No. 3 & 4
15. Resultant upon the findings in issue nos. 1 and 2, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of December, 2022. Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of Discharge summary dated 01/10/2014
Ext.A2 – Original Treatment records of Jubilee Memorial MCH
Ext.A3(series) – 44 original bills from Opposite party hospital
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1- Original Treatment records of opposite party hospital.
Ext.B2 – Copy of Compact Policy bearing no. 101201/48/13/88/00002921
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents:
Ext. X1: Original Medical Certificate
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1: Sri. Mohanan M.G. (Complainant)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1: Dr. Lekha V.R.
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
