Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/108/2018

Dhayanidhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramachandra Aarapadi Medical College & Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

V.Anuradha

10 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Tmt. Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI  ... MEMBER

 

F.A. No.108 of 2018

(Against the Order, dated 04.04.2018,  in C.C. No.101/15,

on the file of  the DCDRC, Chennai-North)

                                                    

                                    

                                 Orders pronounced on:   10.02.2022

            

D.Dhayanidhi,

S/o.Dhandapani,

No.828, Mariammankoil street,

Andipalayam,

Melpattambakkam Post,

Panruti Taluk,

Cuddalore District.               … Appellant / Complainant

 

vs.

 

1.Dr.Ramachandra Du. Aarupadai Veedu

     Medical College & Hospital,

Kirumambakkam Cuddalore Main Road,

Puducherry.                          … 1^st Respondent / 1^st O.P.

 

2.M/s.Aarupadai Veedu

     Medical College & Hospital,

Kirumambakkam Cuddalore Main Road,

Puducherry.                            …  2^nd Respondent / 2^nd  O.P.

 

2.M/s.Aarupadai Veedu

     Medical College & Hospital,

Pandalai Hospital,

Administrative Officer,

Old No.160, New No.213,

Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.  …     3^rd Respondent / 3^rd O.P.

 

             Counsel for Appellant    :M/s. V.Anuradha

             Counsel for R2 & R3             :No representation

             Respondent No.1, called absent.

 

 

          This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 23.12.2021 and, after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J.- President.

             Questioning the Order of dismissal, dated 04.04.2018, passed in C.C. No.101 of 2015, by  the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), the complainant has preferred the present First Appeal.  

 

             2.   The case of the complainant, as projected in the complaint filed before the District Forum, in brief, is as follows:-

             The complainant, aged about 23 year and an electrician by profession, had a small unhealed wound in the right leg, for which, he visited the 2^nd OP/Hospital on 21.07.2009, where a Doctor-in-charge, after examination, told that the said wound was due to footwear allergy.  As per his advice, the complainant had treatment in the said Hospital by getting admitted as an in-patient for 6 days.  At the time of discharge on 26.07.2009, he was told that the wound would get healed in due course.  Even thereafter, since the wound was not getting healed, a scan was taken in A.G.Padmavathi Hospital at Puducherry and the report indicated that the complainant had no major problem.   The complainant again got admitted in the 2^nd OP/Hospital on 30.04.2010 and, after being diagnosed for ‘varicose veins’, a minor surgery costing Rs.40,000/-, was performed on 08.05.2010 by the 1^st OP/Doctor, without following the pre-surgery procedure.  After discharge on 01.06.2010, again he was admitted there on 12.11.2010, as the wound was not healed.  Having undergone two surgeries with continuation of treatment till 13.01.2011, the wound and pain still persisted and he was unable to go for work and thereby, was confined to  home.

               There being no progress in the healing process, on 11.05.2012, the complainant went to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, where he underwent all the required medical tests including MRI Scan.  The complainant was told that non-healing of the wound was due to the reason that the Opposite Parties wrongly diagnosed it as varicose veins and also because of the subsequent wrong surgery performed by the Opposite Parties for a minor problem.  He was further told at the Government Hospital that some veins are interconnected for which a surgery is required and that may either lead to cure or loss of leg.

             The complaint, who was reluctant to undergo the risky surgery as advised at the Government Hospital, on 10.10.2012, had approached the MIOT Hospital, where the Doctors opined that the wound could be cured to some extent only, as he had underwent two wrong surgeries in the 2^nd OP/Hospital.  After getting injected at MIOT Hospital during his admission there  on 18.10.2012 and 19.10.2012,  he was able to walk for two months, however, the complications developed and again, he got the injection administered and, despite the same, the pain persisted.

             Having suffered mental agony and monetary loss due to the negligence on the part of 1^st and 2 Opposite Parties, who failed to perform the surgery with due care and caution, amounting to deficiency of service, by legal notice dated 26.03.2013, the complainant called upon them to pay compensation. But, without replying to the same and coming forward to settle the issue, the 2^nd the 3^rd OPs filed a false case against the complainant before the Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, only to harass him and to scuttle the process of seeking compensation.  Hence, he filed the complaint, seeking to direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.1,00,000/- spent towards medical expenses; Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, monetary loss and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties; and to pay the costs of the complaint.

 

             3. Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 filed a Version, wherein, among other things, it is stated thus:

             The complaint is not maintainable as the cause of action is at Puducherry and no part of cause of action had ever arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Chennai. Further, the complaint has to be dismissed in limini, since it has been filed beyond the period of limitation.   Between July, 2009 and January, 2011, the complainant had been admitted thrice for treatment and, after 13.01.2011, they never gave any treatment to him.   The 3^rd Opposite Party is the Administrative Officer of the 2^nd OP in Chennai and no Hospital or Clinic was run there by the Opposite Parties at any point of time. In fact, the complainant had fabricated the documents and concocted a story by way of an alleged letter, dated 20.12.2014, to project as if he had undergone treatment at Pandalai Hospital, Kilpauk, assuming that it is a Hospital, whereas, the said Building is only a leased office premises of the Opposite Party.  The name of the building alone is ‘Pandalai Hospital’ as, 25 years ago, there used to be a famous Hospital in the premises which was closed a decade ago and now, it is only an office space.

             The complainant came to the Opposite Party Hospital on 30.04.2010 and proper treatment was provided to him till he was discharged on 01.06.2010 and subsequently, he was admitted between 12.11.2010 and 13.01.2011.  During the first admission, he was treated for removal of puss cells from the wound and, in the next course of admission, he was treated for varicose veins, while in the third spell, he was treated for superficial wound till he was discharged.   Even according to the complainant, he visited the Government General Hospital, Chennai,  only after 15 months, on 11.05.2012, as evident from Ex.A4/Discharge Summary, which clearly states that the patient had non-healed ulcer in foot for five months.  Thus, there being absolutely no scope to allege any deficiency of service against the opposite parties, the complaint deserves dismissal.

 

             4. While both sides filed their respective proof affidavits before the District Forum, the complainant  marked Exs.A1 to A7 and, on the side of the Opposite Parties, Exs.B1 and B2 came to be marked.

 

             5. The District Commission, by the impugned order, dated 04.04.2018, dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground of limitation and also on merits by holding that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Aggrieved thereby, the present First Appeal is preferred by the complainant.

 

             6. Learned counsel for the appellant, by stating that the implications of the minor surgery, wrongly performed by the Opposite Parties without proper diagnosis, has resulted in interminable pain and sufferings to the complainant, would submit that, since it is evident from Ex.A4, Discharge Summary issued by the Government General Hospital that, as a result of such wrong surgery, he was suggested to face one more surgery, which may either result in cure or amputation of the leg, there cannot be any doubt that non-healing of the wound is only due to the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties/Hospital in giving treatment to the complainant.   This vital aspect has never been gone into by the District Forum.  Since the complainant was suffering from endless pain and was running from one Hospital to another, which process consumed much time in identifying the area of medical negligence, by simply applying the ground of limitation, the District Forum rushed to reject the complaint, which hasty approach is absolutely unjust and unreasonable.   Similarly, when the materials produced by the appellant, in particular Ex.A4 Discharge Summary issued by the Government General Hospital, clearly suggests veracity in the claim of the complainant, once again, the District Forum wrongly held against the complainant on the faint reason that no expert evidence was adduced to establish the case of the complainant.   According to him,  the reasonings recorded by the District Forum are absolutely erroneous, unjust and unreasonable and hence, the ultimate impugned order deserves interference by this Commission.

 

             7. Per contra, it is the stand of the Opposite Parties that, having received free treatment from the Hospital which runs a medical college with free treatment facilities, the appellant cannot project himself as a consumer, as defined in the Act. During three different spells, he was treated by them between 30.04.2010 and 13.01.2011, in that, during the first spell, puss cells were removed from the wound, in the second spell, treatment was given for varicose veins and finally, he was treated for the superficial wound.   That being so, the very claim of the complainant  that, only due to the wrong diagnosis or treatment provided by the Opposite Parties, he is suffering the ongoing pain, having not been substantiated by any single document marked by him, the District Forum rightly proceeded to negative his case on merits and also on the ground of limitation. Inasmuch as the lines of reasoning recorded by the District Forum run on logic and rationale, there is no ground for interference and accordingly, the appeal may have to be dismissed.

    

             8. We have carefully considered the claim and counter-claim of both sides and also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Forum.

            

          9. Coming to the issue of limitation first, even according to the complainant, he took treatment from the Opposite Party/Hospital finally on 13.01.2011, whereas, the complaint was presented about 4 years later, ie., on 09.03.2015.  In this regard,  Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is relevant to be quoted hereunder,

            “ (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

            (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

In the light of the above provision on Limitation, it is seen that the complainant filed the complaint with a huge delay of about 4 years.  He did not choose to file  any condone delay application before the District Forum, showing sufficient reasons for the delay, as provided in sub-clause (2).   In that perspective, rightly, the District Forum declined to entertain the complaint on the ground of limitation.  Inasmuch as the exercise of the District Forum is well within the ambit of the above provision, the same cannot be found fault with.

 

             10. In our considered view, the complainant has no case on merits also, for the following reasons.

             It seems that the genesis of the complainant’s claim is derived from the alleged opinion/advice given by the Doctors at the Government General Hospital that the diagnosis done and the surgery performed at the Opposite Party/Hospital were wrong and hence, one more surgery was needed, which may result either in cure or loss of leg. In support of the same, Ex.A4/Discharge Summary issued by the Government General Hospital came to be marked.  But, a perusal of the same, unfortunately, not even suggests or hints out that such an opinion about the diagnosis/surgery by the Opposite Parties was ever given by the Doctors at the Government General Hospital.    After his first discharge from the Opposite Party/Hospital on 26.07.2009,  much later, he visited A.G. Padmavathi Hospital on 16.03.2010, where a scan was taken and the said scan Report, according to the complainant, indicated that he had no major problem. Thus, while the so-called opinion as projected by the complainant about “wrong diagnosis/surgery” by the Opposite Parties does not find place in Ex.A4, the pleading in the complaint that the scan report issued by A.G. Padmavathi Hospital, Puducherry, after the initial treatment by the Opposite Parties, indicating that he had no major problem, suggests otherwise.   Although the complainant makes a specific mention about his visit during 2012 to Miot Hospital, where the Doctors told that the two surgeries performed at the Opposite Party/Hospital were wrong, not a single medical record related to Miot Hospital came to be marked.  At this juncture, the defence taken by the Opposite Parties by stating that the complainant cannot be termed as Consumer since he received free treatment assumes much significance, for the simple reason that, when compensation is claimed in the complaint towards medical expenses, not a single bill of the Opposite Parties Hospital was ever produced before the District Forum.  Above all, the apparent/umpteen contradictions & inconsistencies in the complaint ab initio raise serious doubts about the very cause of action itself.  For such reasons, we see no infirmity or error in the findings of the District Forum rendered on merits and accordingly, we hold that the impugned order is perfectly in order, both factually and legally.

 

             10. In the result, the first appeal is dismissed, by confirming the impugned order, dated 04.04.2018, passed by the DCDRC, Chennai North, in C.C.No.101 of 2015, in dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation as well as on merits, as perfectly in order.  No costs.

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT.

 

Index    :  Yes  / No.

ISM/SCDRC/Chennai/Feb/2022.