Date of Filing:03.12.2009<br /> Date of Order: 19.10.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2844 OF 2009<br /> T.P. Ravindran<br /> S/o. Late P.V. Raman Nair<br /> R/at No. 73, I Floor, 5th Cross<br /> Palm Spring Layout, Gubbalal<br /> Bangalore 560 062 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Siddalingappa Memorial Hospital<br /> Rep. by Medical Officer <br /> Dr. Shashikanth R.<br /> No. 675, Konanakunte Cross<br /> Kanakapura Road, Bangalore 62<br /> <br /> 2. Dr. Vinod Kumar (Ortho)<br /> Siddalingappa Memorial Hospital<br /> No. 675, Konanakunte Cross<br /> Kanakapura Road, Bangalore 62<br /> <br /> 3. Dr. Santhosh (GP)<br /> Siddalingappa Memorial Hospital<br /> No. 675, Konanakunte Cross<br /> Kanakapura Road, Bangalore 62<br /> <br /> 4. Dr. Shashikanth (MCC)<br /> Siddalingappa Memorial Hospital<br /> No. 675, Konanakunte Cross<br /> Kanakapura Road, Bangalore 62 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant had been hospitalised as in-patient for about 10 days in the opposite party hospital due to road accident. Dr. Vinod Kumar, Dr. Santhosh and Dr. Shashikanth had treated the complainant. At the time of discharge in discharge summary and wound certificate it is stated that injury is simple in nature. The complainant has paid Rs. 9,930/- as hospital charges. After discharge the complainant suffered back pain. In the month of November 2007 he consulted Mayo Hospital, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bangalore for further treatment. On 28.12.2007 Mayo hospital authority issued report that complainant had T-12 bone fracture. The complainant again consulted Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Cochin, Kerala and Dr. Shyam Sunder had issued letter about the condition of the complainant. The opposite parties have committed medical negligence and deficiency of service due to improper diagnose. Complainant issued legal notice to opposite parties calling upon the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. But no reply was received from the opposite parties. Hence, having no alternate remedy the complainant approached the Hon’ble Forum for the relief seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and refund of Rs. 9,930/- paid by him for the treatment.<br /> 2. After admitting complaint notice issued to opposite parties by registered post. Notice was served on the opposite parties 1 to 4. When the case was set for appearance none of the opposite parties appeared before this forum and they remained absent. Thereafter, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and documents.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?<br /> 5. As per the case of the complainant he met with a road accident on 28.09.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. and suffered injuries in the said accident. On 29.09.2007 he admitted himself to the opposite party’s hospital for treatment. The complainant has produced inpatient charges summary of the opposite party hospital. As per this document date of admission was 29.09.2007, date of discharge was 07.10.2007. The opposite party No. 2, 3, 4 are shown as consultant doctors. The hospital has received Rs. 200/- towards X-ray charges. Total amount of Rs. 9,380/- was received from the complainant. The opposite party had issued wound certificate on 08.10.2007. As per the wound certificate the following injury is noted (1) blunt injury to the lumber region. In the opinion column it is mentioned that injury No. 1 is simple in nature. The case of the complainant that even after discharge from opposite party hospital he suffered pain and therefore, he again admitted in Mayo hospital, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bangalore in the month of December 2007 and the said hospital took the X-ray and the complainant was referred to Ortho opinion. The complainant has produced documents of the Mayo hospital wherein it has been stated that X-ray revealed T-12 bone fracture. The complainant has also produced a letter of Dr. Shyam Sundar, Assistant Professor of Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Cochin, Kerala. This letter also shown that complainant has suffered fracture to T-12 bone. The complainant has got issued legal notice to opposite parties on 25.09.2009 claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for discomfort, mental stress, inconvenience etc. Copy of legal notice is produced. As per the case of complainant opposite parties not responded to the legal notice and no reply sent by opposite parties to legal notice. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint for claiming compensation. Before this forum also the opposite parties remained absent even though served with notice. The opposite parties have not cared to appear and contest the matter. The opposite parties have ignored the notice sent by this forum. Therefore, the opposite parties have committed whatever the allegation made by the complainant. Nothing prevented the opposite parties to appear and contest the matter. For the reasons best known to them they have chosen not to appear before this forum. The case put up by the complainant had gone unchallenged. The complainant had also filed his affidavit evidence in support of his case. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. By the documentary evidence also it is very clear that the opposite party’s hospital has received wound certificate and in the wound certificate fracture of T-12 bone has not been mentioned. On the other hand in the wound certificate they have mentioned injury is simple in nature. Therefore, it is very clear that the opposite party’s hospital has committed deficiency in service and medical negligence in not giving proper and correct wound certificate. The opposite party has collected Rs. 200/- towards X-ray charges, but failed to note the fracture of T-12 bone. Therefore, it amounts to medical negligence. The Mayo Hospital wherein the complainant had been admitted had clearly noted that X-ray revealed T-12 bone fracture likewise Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Cochin had also noted the fracture of the bone. Therefore, the present opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and also medical negligence in not giving report that T 12 bone is fractured. So under these circumstances the complainant has suffered mental strain, agony and inconvenience. The complainant is definitely entitled for the just, fair and reasonable compensation for deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice will be met in awarding Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency of service and medical negligence. In the result I proceed to pas the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 7. In the event of non-compliance of the order the said amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of order till payment / realisation.<br /> 8. The opposite parties are directed to send the amount of compensation awarded directly to the complainant by way of D.D. with intimation to this forum.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />