Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/305/2012

DR. V.S. SENTHILVEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

S. VELUSAMY - Opp.Party(s)

IYER AND THOMAS

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

             BEFORE         HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI        PRESIDENT

                                      THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                       TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                MEMBER

 

                                                                                          F.A.305/2012

     [Against the Order in  C.C No. 12/2008 dated 22.7.2010  on the file of the DCDRF, Erode]

Dated this the  26^th   day MAY, 2015

 

1.Dr.V.S. Senthilvel

Kovai Medical Center Hospital

Perundurai Road,

Erode

 

2. The Managing Director/Medical Director

Kovai Medical Center Hospital

Perundurai Road,

Erode                                                                                                           ..Appellants/opp.parties

                                        Vs

 

S.Velusamy

S/o Shanmuga Ramasamy

Nanjai Uthukuli post 

Modakurichi vi,

Erode District                                                                                           ..Respondents/complainant

 

Counsel for Appellants/opp.parties       :  M/s Iyer and Thomas

Counsel for Respondents/complainant  : M/s B.L.Lavanya

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 10.2.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

               ORDER

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.        This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Erode in CC 12/2008 dated 22.7.2010 allowing the complaint.

2.    The case of the complainant is that on 20.8.2006, he fell down from the motor bike and sustained injuries in his left thigh /Femur and in his right wrist and he had his treatment for 11 days from 20.8.2006 to 30.8.2006 as inpatient in the 2^nd opposite party’s hospital and his problem was diagnosed as, “Proximal Femur fracture left and open fracture both bones right wrist” and he underwent surgery in his left femur and the right wrist He was discharged from the hospital on 30.8.2006, eventhough he had pain in his right wrist. In spite of treatment including surgery by the opposite parties he developed swelling over the right wrist and also he was having pain because of infected implant fixed by the 1^st opposite party. Therefore the 1^st opposite party advised him to continue the treatment at the Government Head Quarter hospital, Erode. He went to Government Hospital, Erode, where the doctors after taking x –rays told him that the hospital had no proper facilities to treat him and so he got admitted in one LKM hospital, Erode as an inpatient on 31.1.2007, where he underwent surgery and got discharged on 6.2.2007, all these amount to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.      According to the opposite parties, the complainant met them after more than one hour after the accident and his joints, right wrist, blood vessels nerves, skin and flesh were badly damaged at the site of the fracture and the site was highly contaminated with mud and dirt. The fracture of the wrist was classified as  “highly contaminated open fracture of both bones and right wrist”. The patient  was admitted with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Airway Disease (COPD). Therefore  opinions of pulmonologist and cardiologist were obtained and on their advice, surgery was postponed and after obtaining fitness certificate on 23.8.2006 the surgery was performed and the procedure on the wrist was only a temporary measure to unite the broken bones. The complainant came for review on 2.9.2006 and 5.10.2006 and on 5.10.2006, he was seen by the 1^st opposite party and he came to know that there was no pain in the left hip and there was mild discharge from the wound in the right wrist which was cleaned and dressed and the complainant did not come again. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part.

3.        The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs of Rs.3000/-.

4.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

5.      It is pertinent to note that no medical expert’s opinion or evidence is on record and so we have to decide issues considering the available evidence. and his evidence cannot  be considered as expert’s evidence.

6.     First we have to note that according to the opposite parties, when the complainant approached him for treatment, he found that the fracture in the wrist was highly contaminated and open it was open fracture of both bone and right wrist and the exposure of the complainant to infection was complete even before the admission of the complainant in the opposite parties’ hospital . Having known that the area of surgery was highly contaminated the opposite parties ought to have given complete treatment. There is no justification to discharge the complainant without proper treatment which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Further no purpose would be served by repeating that the injured area was highly contaminated and was already exposed to infection as stated above and without proper and complete treatment, the complainant was discharged. Further, the complainant was admitted  in their hospital on 20.8.2006 and the surgery was conducted on 23.8.2006 and according to the opposite parties, the patient had Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Airway Disease (COPD) and so the opinions of pulmonologist and cardiologist were obtained and the surgery was conducted only thereafter and hence the delay in conducting the surgery. However it is relevant to note that the facts are not mentioned in the discharge summary in Ex. A.1, issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. The minimal essential details such as the procedure followed by the opposite parties are not mentioned in the discharge summary Ex.A.1, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and we cannot accept the further contention of the opposite parties that subsequently a detailed discharge summary was prepared.The surgery was conducted on 23.8.2006 and when the complainant came for review on 2.9.2006,   the 1^st opposite party found that there was no pain in the left hip and there was a mild discharge from the wound in the right wrist, and the procedure of surgery on 23.8.2006 was only a temporary measures to unite the broken bones.

7.        The District Forum has observed that there are many contradictions between documents Ex.B.1 to B.4 and Ex.B.6 to B.8 which are unreliable accounts and the District Forum has assigned a proper reason for coming to the conclusion. On perusal of the records, we agree with the observation and submitting the unreliable documents before the Commission and before the District Forum, amount to further deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.      The District Forum has further observed that proper consent has not been obtained from the proper persons before conducting the surgery. The consent Ex.B.5 is not  a proper informed consent, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court and Hon’ble National Commission, we do not find that the nature of surgery and the risks involved in the procedure are explained the complainant and his relatives in tamil.

           The consent Ex.B.5 does not satisfy in the above conditions and therefore not obtaining proper informed consent amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

9.     For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in treating the complainant.

10.       The District Forum has rightly held that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as total compensation.

11.        The award is quite reasonable and we find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the decision of the District Forum. There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

               In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum.

           No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                               J. JAYARAM                         R.REGUPATHI

        MEMBER                               JUDICIAL MEMBER                PRESIDENT