Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/335/2013

ASSISTANT ENGINEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

N. ANEES FATHIMA - Opp.Party(s)

R. AMARNATH RAO KHANDE

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                           BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                              Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 279/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.75/2010 dated 15.9.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri ]

DATED THIS THE  25^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015

Dr.Balakrishnan,

G.M.Hospital,

Opp. to BDO office,

Palacode,

Dharmapuri District                                                                                       ..Appellant/opp.party

                                                                                           Vs

Saravanan,

S/o Murugesan, 9/133,

Pallikoodathan Street,

Palacode Town and Taluk,

Dharmapuri District                                                                               ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the  Appellant/opp.party  : M/s Anand, Abdul & Vinoth Associates

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant   : M/s R.Munuswamy   

The opposite party is the appellant.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/opp.party filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in CC.No. 75/2010 dated 15.9.2011. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 25.8.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.        The  opposite party is the appellant.

 2.       The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party alleging medical negligence in giving treatment to the complainant for simple fever and cough which caused some complications due to the injection wrongly given which leads to abscess to intervene through surgical incision and other consequential treatment by making the complainant to spend more than Rs.2,15,000/- towards medical expenses.

3.        The District Forum after an enquiry, on the basis of both sides came to the conclusion that there was negligence and wrong treatment due to deficiency in service by the opposite party, allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as compensation for physical strain and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost.

4.          Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has come forward with this appeal contending that the complainant already taken treatment with one Ayurvedha doctor Dr.Asokan, who had administered the injection before one week which were turned swelling in the gluteal region. On 29.11.2009 when the complainant came to the opposite party hospital with the complaint of cough and fever having swelling on his gluteal region and left side of the buttock and he was treated with tablets and ointment and on the next day, he had severe pain on the gluteal region, loose motion and vomiting for which he was given treatment and the abscess extended from left gluteal region to the back of left thigh and he was advised for applying ointment and medicines given for loose motion and vomiting , he had the same complaint on 30.11.2009 and advised for to incise the abscess and drain the same and on examination of blood test, he was having abnormal levels causing BP with lower BP, dehydration hence he was referred to higher hospital for better management along with a reference letter from the appellant, but the complainant did not follow-up. Subsequently the opposite party exercised due care and followed the normal procedure in giving the treatment as per protocol and thereby no negligence on their part and the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint which is to be set aside.

5.       We have heard both side arguments, contentions and submissions and carefully considered all the relevant material in this case. It is the admitted case of both sides, the complainant approached the opposite party on 27.11.2009 for the simple complaint of cough and fever for which he was given injection and medicines, on 29.11.2009 also for the alleged vomiting and pain and loose motion and which continue till 30.11.2009. The appellant contended even on 29.9.2011, he was having severe pain on the left gluteal region for which he was advised to apply Diclofenac  gel ointment on the swelling, Amikacin 500 mg  for loose motion and Emeset 2 cc through I.V was given and advised for surgery for the gluteal region which was not carried over by the complainant. Whereas the complainant alleged on 29.11.2009 itself he had severe pain on the gluteal region and the opposite party administered another injection and also given medicines through the vein in his hand and on 30.11.2009 he had vomited several times and on 30.11.2009 10.00 A.M he was admitted in the said nursing home, he had given drips where the injection was administered and that he was unable to sleep due to pain  and he was given an injection through vein along with drips, till 4.00 P.M there was no improvement and his BP is very low at 7.45p.m and his condition was very critical and and the doctor advised his father to take him further treatment to Om Sakthi Hospital at Dharmapuri and on 1.12.2009 at about 4.00 A.M the complainant was admitted in the intensive care unit of Manipal Hospital at Bangalore. He was in ICU for about 5 days and thereafter he was shifted to the ward. The complainant was in-patient for about 10 days in the Manipal hospital where he was for large left gluteal and thigh abscess with septic shock which was caused due to the negligent treatment given by the opposite party. On 10.12.2009, the complainant was discharged from the hospital.

6.         On perusal of the medical records of Manipal hospital under Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.8, it is pointed out in the certificate under Ex.A.7, the complainant was admitted on 1.12.2009  in MICU ward with Sepsis and multi organ failure. He needs ventilatory support and hemodynamic support. He may need to stay in ICU for 1-2 weeks. In Ex.A.8, discharge summary, the diagnosis was made for Large Left Gluteal And Thigh Abscess with septic shock and under the caption course of treatment in hospital, it is pointed out that the complainant was admitted in MICU on 1.12.2009 with features of septic shock and multi organ dysfunction due to necrotizing fascites of left glutal region following and intramuscular injection he had received earlier and a surgical procedures he was made cured and his condition was improved. The appellant contended that before coming to the opposite party, the complainant had already undergone for treatment with one Dr.Asokan, he had issued certificates under Ex.A.5 and the prescription, he had issued on 29.11.2009, was suppressed by the complainant in which the details are given and as per the prescription under Ex.A.3, it is found that the patient Saravanan was injected and referred to expert’s opinion and no other materials except Ex.A.1, A.2 and Ex.A.3 prescription, no other documents for giving to the treatment by the opposite party was produced and the documents relied upon by Ex.B.3 and B.4,  copies of the  prescription which all are dated 27.11.2009, the same was produced by the complainant as Ex.A.1 and A.2 and Ex.B.5 is the same of Ex.A.3. Ex.B.6 relates to the blood test to show that the complainant had abnormal particle in blood which caused low BP as on 30.11.2009 as per Ex.A.4 report as the condition of patient became critical because of high rate of glucose  and the patient have low B.P which made the opposite party to refer the patient to other hospital

7.          The contention of the appellant that they have not given injection on the left gluteal region and they have given injection on the other side and some other doctor had given treatment earlier for that  relied upon Ex.A.11 certificate issued by one Dr. Asoke. But Ex.A.11 would reveal that he had not given any injection or consultation  to the complainant either on 27.1.2009 or before that date.  For the complaint of simple fever and cough, when the complainant approached the opposite party he was given injection on his gluteal region and various injections and other medicines for vomiting and loose motion, though the opposite party contended that have diagnosed for gluteal abscess with advise of incision and drain, for which no documents has been produced and no discharge summary was given even though he was admitted with the hospital on 30.11.2009 at 10.00 A.M and he was there through out day and the reference letter nothing to suggest regarding the gluteal abscess and mere application of diclofenac ointment would reduce the pain and acted anti-inflammatory nature and the contention of the appellant that abscess usually reach the extension to take six or seven days, for the complainant though advised or not turned for incision and drainage subsequently, no material is available to believe the version of the opposite party, the opposite party relied upon the medical literature of Bailey Love’s Short practice of surgery, 23^rd edition, page 90 to state it will take 7 to 9 days for extension of abscess from one side to another after injection.     

 

8.          From the above observation, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant had proved the case of negligence on the part of the appellant and in view of the reasons and points are discussed as above. We are of the view that the District Forum has considered all the relevant materials and came to the proper conclusion, that observing that the complainant has proved negligence of the opposite party with which  we are in full agreement. As for as the award is concerned, the District Forum had awarded the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.5000/-. When considering the ordeals and hardship undergone by the complainant because of the deficiency in service of the opposite party and the complainant  having spent another sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards further treatment at Om Sakthi hospital and Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. The award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-  is nominal and justifiable one and there is no need for any interference in the same also and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly,

       In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in CC.  75/2010   dated 15.9.2011.

        No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                                  A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER