By Jayasree Kallat, Member: Petition filed by Smt. M.V. Leela alleging deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that she had pain on the toe of the right leg. On 18-6-02 she approached opposite party-1 hosapital and consulted opposite party-2 Doctor, the doctor examined, applied medicines and directed her to come to the hospital next day. Due to the severe pain and swelling she again consulted opposite party-2 Doctor. On the very next day the opposite party-2 advised the complainant to get admitted in the opposite party-1 hospital. Opposite party-2 doctor without doing any necessary tests or procedures operated her nail. The treatment continued upto 20-6-02. On 20-6-02 the condition of the toebecame worse, there was no sign of healing. Infection was spreading even towards the knee. When the conditions became worse opposite party referred the complainant to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. From the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode Dr. Lakshmi Narayanan the Head of the Department of Surgery examined the complainant. Dr. Lakshmi Narayanan examined the complainant’s toe nail, then he suggested to do all the necessary tests. When the blood test was taken it was found that the complainant is a diabetic patient. So he advised her to start medicines to control the sugar. Complainant was given Dionil a medicine for diabetics and other anti biotics to reduce infection. The complainant had to remain in Medical College Hospital for almost 45 days. She had to be admitted in Medical college hospital and underwent treatment for 45 days and also had undergone mental strain and agony due to the complications risen after the treatment of opposite party-2 from opposite party-1 hospital. Hence this complaint seeking compensation and cost from the opposite parties. Opposite party-1 filed a version denying all the allegations and averments in the complaint. Opposite party-1 admits that the complainant was treated by opposite party-2 from the opposite party-1 hospital. According to opposite party-1 the complainant had consulted Dr. Deepak on 17-6-02 as an outpatient. Doctor had advised the complainant to be admitted in opposite party-1 hospital on the same day. But against this advise the complainant did not get herself admitted. Hence the doctor had prescribed appropriate medicine and dressed the toe nail and directed her to again consult the doctor on 19-6-02. But the complainant had gone to the hospital on 18-6-02 itself because of severe pain. Opposite party-2 doctor examined and advised the complainant that the toe nail has to be removed after applying local anesthesia. The complainant was admitted in the opposite party-1 hospital on 18-6-02. The same day after giving local anesthesia the toe nail was removed. Doctor had given test doze giving anesthesia. She was given Tetanus Toxide Injection and other necessary medicines, also did dressing to the infected toe. All these treatments were given under the direction and supervision of Dr. Deepak. Opposite party-2 doctor had examined the complainant on19-6-02 and found that there was a little pain and a small swelling on the toe from which the nail was removed. Opposite party-2 doctor from examination understood that the wound was healing. The doctor prescribed necessary medicines and advised dressing of the toe. Complainant was asked to keep the right leg on a raised platform. On 20-6-02 Dr. Deepak again examined the patient, the patient complained pain and swelling of the toe. The relatives and family members of the complainant who were in the hospital insisted that she should be taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. At the request of the relatives and family members of the complainant doctor had referred the patient to medical college hospital, Kozhikode. According to opposite party, opposite party-2 and opposite party-1 had examined the complainant given her the necessary medicines injection and treatment without any negligence. There was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. In the version of opposite party-1 they have stated that opposite party-2 doctor is not in the service of opposite party-1 any more and he is practicing elsewhere. Opposite party-1 hospital had assured that the complainant was given the necessary medicines and injections and good quality treatment from the hospital. The complainant had not raised any objection at the time when she was treated in the hospital. She had gone to the medical college hospital at her own will. The opposite party is not responsible for what had happened to the complainant after she got herself discharged from the opposite party hospital and gone for treatment to M.C.H. Kozhikode. Opposite party-1 was always willing to treat the complainant and cure her illness completely but she had discontinued her treatment in opposite party hospital and went for treatment to medical college hospital at her own wish. The complainant’s relatives and family insisted for discharge from opposite party-1 hospital. Hence there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of opposite party-1. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Opposite party-2 Doctor had never appeared in court. Notice to opposite party-2 was issued twice from the court. Although acknowledgment received from opposite party-2, did not appear. Hence on 30-6-03 opposite party-2 was called absent and set exparte. The points for consideration is (1) whether there was any negligence or deficiency on the part of opposite parties? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? PWs 1 to 3 were examined on complainant’s side. Exts. A1 to A11 were marked. RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 and B2 were markedon opposite parties' side. Point No.1: The case of the complainant is that she felt pain on her big toe nail of the right foot. Hence she had gone to the opposite party-1 hospital and consulted opposite party-2 Dr. Deepak. After examining the toe nail doctor had given medicine but as the pain and swelling increased, she again approached opposite party-2. Doctor. Doctor advised her to get admitted in the opposite party-1 hospital and the complainant’s toe nail was removed. The specific case of the complainant is that opposite party-2 doctor had operated on the toe without doing any necessary tests which led to infection spreading from the toe to the knee of the right foot. Complainant had suffered more pain and she got herself admitted in medical college, kozhikode and was treated in medical college for about 45 days. She had to spend a huge amount of money because of the negligence of the opposite party-2 doctor. In Medical College Hospital Dr. Lakshmi Narayanan the Head of the Department of Surgery had treated the complainant. Dr. Lakshmi Narayanan is a very experienced doctor. Dr. Lakshmi Narayanan was examined as PW2. In page-4 of the deposition he has deposed “ PW2 examined the patient on 20-6-02. He had deposed in Page-1 that he had directed the complainant to get blood, Urine tested on the same day. In 3rd page of Axt. A10 it is written “known diabetic”. On perusal of Ext.A10 the case record of medical college hospital, kozhikode of Leela shows that she is a diabetic patient. From the progress notes and doctor’s orders of Ext.A10 in the column of prescription for the medicines we can also see that Dionil a medicine for diabetic patients were regularly given to this patient. Ext.A11 is a copy of the Laboratory Register recording the blood test conducted on Good Samaritan Laboratory of blood test of several patients. In the contents of Ext.A11 Sl. No.79 is the name of the patient called Leela ( Purameri, age-35) RBS is recorded to be 172Mg. The complainant in this case is Leela from Purameri of 35 years of age. The complainant had deposed that her blood was taken to test as advised by the doctor. The test were done as per the advise of Dr. Lakshmi Narayanan. The blood was tested in Good Samaritan Enterprises. Ext.A5 shows that Random Sugar of the patient Leela is 172 . From the Lab report and from the case sheet Ext.A10 from medical college shows that the patient was diabetic. For a diabetic patient when surgery is to be done the sugar level should be tested and controlled before doing any surgery. The deposition of Dr. Lakshmi Narayanan, Head of Department of Surgery, Medical College, Kozhikode Page- 4 states that if a diabetic patient is operated without any precaution there is a chance of infection. In the case of this complainant she had pain on the toe nail of right leg. Opposite party-2 doctor removed the toe nail and dressed up the wound. But later on pain and swelling increased on the operated part. The complainant was then admitted in medical college hospital, kozhikode and underwent treatment. From medical college, blood of the complainant was tested in which it came to be noted that the complainant was having diabeties. Hence she was given medicine for controlling sugar level and after treatment for diabetics and taking anti biotics and being treated for about 45 days complainant had recovered. According to the complainant if the opposite party-2 doctor had taken precaution before removing the nail and taken blood test, all the complications which occurred after the surgery could have been avoided. She alleges negligence and deficiency on the part of opposite party-1 and opposite party-2. From the evidence of PW1 to 3 and Ext.A1 to A11 we are of the opinion that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Point No.1 is thus proved. Point No.2: As the Forum has come to the conclusion that there was negligence and deficiency on the part of opposite parties we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to get relief. But about the quantum requested by the complainant, Forum is of the opinion that, it is a bit on the higher level. According to us the complainant is entitled to get a relief of Rs.30000/- for the treatment, which she had to undergo at Medical College including the expenses for two persons spending for about 45 days and also for the loss of working days. In the result the petition is allowed . The opposite parties-1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.30000/- ( Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for her mental agony and hardship. Opposite parties are also to pay a cost of Rs.1000/-. Pronounced in the open court this the 10th day of September 2008. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPNDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant. A1. Follow Up Card issued by O.P.1 to the complainant. A2. Bills issued by O.P.1 to the complainant. A3. Reference card issued by Medical CollegeHospital, Kozhikode-8. A4. A4 series ( 28 in Nos.) Cash bills. A5. Blood Investigation result issued by Good Samaritan Enterprises and Cash receipt issued by Hospital Development Society, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. A6. Referal O.P. Ticket issued by Medical College Hospital, Calicut. A7. Copy of Lawyer notice dt. 20-10-02. A8. Undelivered Lawyer notice and envelope A9. Reply notice dt. 13-12-02. A10. Case Record of Leela issued by Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. A11. Photocopy of Blood test result register of Good Samaritan Enterprises. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. B1. Photocopy of O.P. ticket. B2. Photocopy of Doctors Orders sheet. Witness examined for the complainant. PW1. Leela (Complainant. PW2. Dr. C.M. Lakshmi Narayanan, Professor & H.O.D. of Surgery in Calicut Medical College. PW3. K.P. Sajini, Technician, Good Samaritan Enterprises. Witness examined for the opposite party. RW1. Dr. P. Nazeer, Vatakara Co-Operative Hospital. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
......................G YADUNADHAN
......................JAYASREE KALLAT
......................K.V.SREENIVASAN | | 
