Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

53/2011

Vasantha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shakthi Hospital & Other - Opp.Party(s)

Kothadapani

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   24.02. 2011

                                                                        Date of Order :   14.12.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.53/2011

MONDAY THIS  14^TH  DAY OF DECEMBER  2015

 

R.Vasantha,

W/o. Rajendran,

Rep. by her Daughter

A.Gomathi,

Teynampet,

Chennai 600 018.                                          ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

1.  Dr. Sivakamu Dhandapani

Sakthi Hospital,

No.24/7, Multi Specialty Hospital,

Chennai 600 005.

 

2. Dr.F.Sivakumar,

Hospital Superintendent,

Sakthi Hospital and Research Centre,

Chennai 600 005.

 

3. Executive Director,

Sakthi Hospital,

No.24/7, Multi Specialty Hospital,

Chennai 600 005.                                              ..Opposite parties.  

 

 

For the Complainant                   :   M/s. V.Gothandapani   

For the Opposite parties 1 to 3     :    M/s. Dr.B.Cheran & and another     

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties  to pay a sum of  Rs.19,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

        The complainant’s mother was admitted in Sakthi Hospital Chennai on 8.8.2010 and discharge on 23.8.2010 with diagnosis of “Multi Nodulal Goiter”  and procedure was under ETGA on 9.8.2010 before operation patient was reviewed Anaesthetist, Physician, ENT surgeon and patient was weaned off from the ventilation and connected to T-piece and after 24 hours patient was extubated.  After extubation after one hour patient developed stridor and breathing difficulty, so patient was again reintubated and mechanical ventilation connected.   Patient was seen by surgeon on whose opinion “Laryngo trachea malacia” and to continue for mechanical ventilation for 72 hours.    The doctor who has given the treatment directed the patient to come for review if she had any breathing difficulties immediately to Sakthi Hospital.  

2.     Again on 3.9.2010 the patient was admitted into Sri Ramachandra Medical Hospital, Chennai for  breathing difficulty.   For voice of the complainant’s mother was sincerely suggested by doctor stating that the patient lost more than 50 percent of functional voice due to vocal cord palsy.   Accordingly the complainant had sent a legal notice to the opposite parties claiming deficiency of service for wrong treatment given by the opposite parties.   As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.       

Written version of  1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties are   as follows:-

3.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    It is not true that the complainant was discharged on 23.8.2010 with breathing difficulty.  If the discharge summary is perused the advise was to report to hospital if breathing difficulty arise.   Hence it is clear that there was no breathing difficulty at discharge on 23.8.2010.  For voice the complainant was sincerely suggested tracheostomy and partial cordectomy.  But both the complainant and relatives refused blatantly.  After all later at Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, the very same surgery was only performed and the patient become alright.   The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence,  deficiency or action of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.   and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.      Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

Written version of  3^rd opposite party is   as follows:-

4.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   First of all, the 3^rd opposite party categorically wishes to bring to the knowledge of the esteemed forum a fact that “throughout the length and breadth of the complaint and complainant had not said anything against  the 3^rd opposite party.   The 3^rd opposite party had been impleaded as a party by vicarious responsibility.    The 3^rd opposite party has not committed any omission or commission.   The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency of action of  3^rd opposite party.    Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

5.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite parties have filed his proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 filed on the side of the opposite parties. 

6.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

7.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint  filed by the complainant, written version filed by the  opposite parties, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the  opposite parties and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A16  filed on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 filed on the side of the opposite parties and considered the both side arguments.

8.       The complainant had filed a complaint under sec 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 stating that the deficiency of service by the opposite parties 1 to 3.   The complainant’s mother was admitted in Sakthi Hospital, Triplicane, Chennai on 8.8.2010 and discharged on 23.8.2010 with diagnosis of “MULTI NODULAR GOITER”  and procedure was under ETGA on 9.8.2010 before operation patient was reviewed by Anaesthetist, Physician, ENT Surgeon and patient was weaned off from the ventilation and connected to T-piece and after 24 hours patient was extubated.  After extubation, after one hour patient developed stridor and breathing difficulty, so patient was again reintubated and mechanical ventilation connected.   Patient was seen by surgeon on whose opinion “Laryngo tracheo malacia “and to continue for mechanical ventilation for 72 hours.    After continued medication and supportive therapy patient improved well and discharged.  

9.     The hospital authority had conducted blood Hematology, Bio-chemistry, Endocrinology, Histopathology tests with chest x-ray.   The impression found “Byramidial Lobe showing features off HASHIMOTOS THYROIDITIS “. The doctor who had given the treatment directed the patient to come for review if she had any breathing difficulties immediately to Sakthi Hospital.   But patient failed to go for further review.  

10.    On 3.9.2010 the patient was admitted into Sri Ramachandra Medical Hospital, Chennai with diagnosis of “BILATERAL ABDUCTOR PALSY (PSOT-THYROIDECTOMY STATUS) PROCEDURE DONE: 1. LASER ASSISTED RIGHT PARTIAL CONRDECTIOMY WITH ARYTENOIDECTOMY UNDER GA ON 4.9.2010 2. EMERGENCEY TRECHEOSTOMY UNDER LA ON 6.9.2010  page No.1 in Ex.A7.  The procedure adopted “The posterior part of right vocal cord and the vocal processes of arytenoid were removed, patient was extubated and shifted to recovery.  Post op period was unevenfull.  No surgical emphysema”.  Patient was discharged on 8.9.2010 (Ex.A7) patient was educated 1.regular suctioning 2. Tracheostomy Tube care.  

11.    The said patient was readmitted on 8.9.2010 and discharged on 14.9.2010 (Ex.A8)with diagnosis of 1) Post OP laser assisted right partial cordectomy with arytenoidectomy    2) Post tracheostomy status patient underwent medication and found healthy and discharged.

12.    Again the said patient was admitted on 9.11.2010 and discharged on 10.11.2010 Ex.A10 with diagnosis of No. 1) Bilateral Abductor Cord palsy (post op total Thyroidectomy 2) Post OP laser assisted right arytenoidectomy with right cordectomy 3) Tracheostomy 4) Vocal cord synechiae during the investigation the THS level was very high i.e. 139.66 hence endocrinology opinion sought and surgery cancelled advise to continue thyronorm 100 mg tablet continuously.Grade II Stridor found present.  

13.    Again the patient admitted on 21.12.2010 and discharged on 23.12.2010 (Ex.A11) and diagnosed “Post operative Glottic web “.   The procedure done: Tracheotomy tube change under LA with Microlaryngeal excision of Glottic web under general anesthesia on 22.12.2010.

14.    Under Ex.A14 doctor who performed operation/treatment in Sri Ramachandra Hospital had given a letter stating that the patient lost more than 50 percent of functional voice due to vocal cord palsy but he had not given reasons for the loss of voice, which had resulted due to the wrong treatment given by the Opposite party.

15.    The complainant had sent a legal notice Ex.A15, dated 4.10.2010 to the opposite parties claiming ‘deficiency of service’ by conducting the operation which resulted in loss of voice. under Ex.A16 the opposite parties denied the averments made by the complainant.   

16.    On perusal of both the written version and proof affidavit and documents filed by the complainant and opposite parties, we deeply probe into the medical literatures, “Principle of Surgery” by Schewartz, 6^th Edition page No.579 Exhibits “Recurrent laryngcal never injury 1% to 3 % of Thyroid operation maybe unilateral or bilateral temporary ( 3 to 12 months) or permanent with abductor laryngeal palsy the vocal card assume a medial position.   The voice is “hysky and hoarse”.  Bilateral vocal cord paralysis can comprise the airway.   Further Medical literature demonstrates, the risk vocal cord dysfunction may arise three fold in patients 50 years old or above, twice in patients for three to four hours, 15 times in patient intubated for more than six hours and twice in patients with the history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension.   Patient should be warned about possible recurrent laryngeal nerve damaged (1%) and hypoparathyroidisim (5%). 

17.    This specific allegation made by the complainant against the opposite party that the patient was taking treatment in the opposite party’s hospital, ‘she was unable to speak and had respiratory problem, the opposite party had not given necessary treatment for the same and the patient was simply discharged with the said sufferings’.  Whereas on perusal of discharge summary, (Ex.A1) given by the complainant and hospital records given by the opposite party (Ex.B1 to ex.B6) reveals the patient was adequately taken care of by exercising trial extubation on 11.8.2010, as a patient developed Stridor and Hypoxia and difficulty in breathing patient was connected T-Piece (page No.17 of B1)  on various treatments were continued with medication, patient conscious, oriented, a febrile,  S1 S2 (+), Bilateral Air entry normal, wheeze decreased, able to talk orally, wounds healed up to 21.8.2010. The ENT surgeon has suggested “if after tracheostomy, after six weeks of window waiting period, vocal cord function does not improve, partial cordectomy maybe planned”.  The need for Tracheostomy is explained to the patient and relatives, but they don’t want Tracheostomy and they want only Conservative management.  On 23.8.2010 the patient slept well, no specific complaint pulse rate 80.ml, Bp 120/80 mm, CVS S1 S2 (+), bilateral entry clear, patient eating normal, advise to report, if she has breathlessness.  During the confinement in the hospital by keeping her in the intensive care unit with full medication and ventilation, after sterilization patient was shifted to ward. When once the patient was stabilized the patient was discharged.   Therefore the allegations made against the opposite partly by the complainant the patient was not properly treated as mentioned above has not acceptable.

18.    There is no specific medically based allegation against the alleged treatment given by the opposite party to complainant’s mother.    Admittedly the complainant mother has not attended the review after discharge as advised by the opposite party as mentioned in the discharge summary.   Further, the complainant’s mother instead of going to the opposite party for review after ten days from the discharge from the opposite party hospital had gone to have treatment at another hospital Sri Ramachandra Hospital where she was given further evaluation and treatment with multiple surgery for the period of four months (3.9.2010 to 23.9.2010 as per records produced on the side of complainant.  Even in the hospital record of Sri Ramachandra Hospital there is no whisper about the treatment given to the said patient by the opposite party “was defective or improper which caused loss of voice”.    

19.    We carefully verified all the records and the appellant hospital on 9.8.2010 taken consent from the patient “risk of recurrent laryngcal nerve injury its complications has been explained under ETGA on 9.8.2010.  On the date of discharge of patient Slept well, bilateral air entry clear eating normally and advice the patient to continue the prescribed medication and report immediately to the hospital if the patient has breathlessness (page 46 of Ex.A7).

20.    We are of the considered view that the opposite parties had taken all precautionary measures in treating the patient and informing the after results of the operation, where the complainant has not proved the deficiency of service by the opposite parties, unless the operation was conducted in timely manner for thyroid, which may affect the other parts of the body.   Hence the doctors who have treated the patient prudently administered their professional skills and the loss of voice is not due to the negligent of the doctors of the opposite parties.   Further as contended by the opposite party the complainant has not proved the allegations made against the opposite party that the treatment given by the opposite party was improper as such which caused loss of voice by producing necessary medical expert opinion (other than the doctor who had conducted operation / treatment).  Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant miserably failed to establish the allegation and deficiency of service attributed against the opposite party for the loss of voice.   As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint  against opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances parties have to bear their own cost of litigation and as such the points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly. 

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  14th    day of  December   2015.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1- 8.8.10 to 23.8.10     – Copy of discharge summary.

Ex.A2- 10.8.10 to 22.8.10   - Copy of X-ray, Radiology report.

Ex.A3- 10.8.10 to 22.8.10   - Copy of Blood Test report.

Ex.A4- 21.8.2010             - Copy of Histopathology report.

Ex.A5- 2.9.2010               - Copy of Sri Ramachandra Hospital medical report.

Ex.A6- 3.9.2010               - Copy of Medical report.

Ex.A7- 3.9.10 to 8.9.10      – Copy of medical report.

Ex.A8- 8.9.10 to 14.9.10     – Copy of medical report.

Ex.A9- 13.9.2010               - Copy of x-ray.

Ex.A10- 9.11.10 to 10.11.10- Copy of medical report.

Ex.A11-21.12.10 to 23.12.10- Copy of medical report.

Ex.A12- 3.9.10 to 8.9.10              - Copy of medical expenses.

Ex.A13-9.11.10to23.12.10   - Copy of medical expenses.

Ex.A14-4.1.2011                - Copy of Medical certificate.

Ex.A15-4.10.2010              - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A16-21.10.2010                      - Copy of reply notice.

 

Opposite parties’ side  documents:

Ex.B1 series -                - Copy of Case sheet of complainant.

Ex.B2-                               - Copy of consent for operation/medical procedure

Ex.B3-                               - Copy of Transfer Memo.

Ex.B4-                              - Copy of Discharge bill.

Ex.B5- 8.6.10 – 17.9.10      - Copy of log book register.

Ex.B6-         -                    - Copy of operation Theatre Note book. 

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.