Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/364/2012

D. KALAI ARASU - Complainant(s)

Versus

SREE RESHMIKA HOSPITAL, S. MURUGADOSS - Opp.Party(s)

D. KALAI ARASU

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 364/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.345/2011 dated 26.4.2012 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore ]

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF MAY 2015

D.Kalaiarasu

75, Kavi Tagore steet

Machampalayam

Sundarapuram post

Coimbatore                                            ..Appellant/complainant

                                        Vs

Sree Reshmika Hospital

Rep.by Dr.S.Murugadoss

193/145, Pollachi Main Road,

Sundarapuram P.O, Coimbatore              ..Respondent/opp.party

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant  : M/s D.Kalai Arasu

For Respondent/opp.party                   : Served called absent

 

The complainant is the appellant, filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain reliefs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No. 345/2011  dated 26.4.2012. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 1.4.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The complainant sustained a cut injury on his left hand index finger on 13.3.2011 and thereby approached the opposite party for medical treatment who administered injection and sutured the wound and prescribe medicines for three days. Thereafter the complainant went for review to the opposite party’s hospital and the wound was cleaned and dressed, but it did not heal in two weeks. The complainant noticed a bend in his left hand index finger unable to keep the finger straight. There is pain and swelling in that finger and therefore he feels hard to drive his vehicle and unable to do his day -to -day affairs. The complainant felt ugly due to disfigurement of the above finger and when he approached the surgeon for consultation who advised him to undergo a surgery to bring his left hand index finger to a normal position and thereby after issuing a legal notice, dated 14.9.2011, a consumer complaint came to be filed for direction to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to meet the medical expenses for further surgery and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service etc., besides cost of the proceedings.

 

2.     The opposite party hospital denied the allegations except to admit the treatment given to the complainant on 13.7.2011 and at the time of treatment, it was found that the vitals were normal, the wound was sutured and the medicines including tetanus injection were given, he was advised to come for review after 3 days. However he did not turn up for review as advised. There was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in giving treatment. As the treatment was given as per the established medical protocol having experience in the treatment with unblemished service of the hospital for twenty years.

3.     Based on both side materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum accepting the contentions of the opposite party, dismissed the complaint.

 

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal and in the grounds of appeal alleging that the District Forum failed to observe that there was no need for any expert evidence, when the averment of disfigurement is not denied by the Respondent and the disfigurement is to be corrected only by surgical intervention and wrongly relied upon the ruling in this case.

5.      In the appeal, the Respondent/opposite party though received notice, remained absent and in the absence of Respondent/opposite party after hearing the appellant and upon perusal of the written arguments of the appellant, the order being passed on merits.

 

6.        It is the admitted case of both side that the complainant approached the opposite party for his cut injury on the left index finger on 13.3.2011 for which he was given treatment by the opposite party giving tetanus injection and suturing the wound  and advised to come after three days for review after prescribing necessary medicines for three days. But the Respondent/opposite party contended that he did not turn up for review but the appellant/complainant contended he often consulted the opposite party and had dressing for two weeks and even after that the wound was not healed and the finger became bend and could not be stretched straight. For these, the complainant contended that he had relied upon Ex.A.5, the token issued by the opposite party for the purpose of treatment on 18.3.2011. But eventhough he produced the token under Ex.A.5, he failed to prove after obtaining the token whether he had actually given treatment or consulted for treatment on 18.3.2011 by way of producing any further medical records like history of medical treatment, discharge summary etc.,

 

7.     The opposite party relied upon the documents under Ex.B.1 and B2, Ex.B.1, copy of the treatment record dated 13.3.2011. On perusal of Ex.B.1, in which after making the entries relating to the treatment and medicines prescribed for three days, it is found advised for review after three days and vitals are stable and other systems noted as NAD. The wound was found with suturing closure by giving TT injection. The contention of the complainant after the 1^st treatment on 13.3.2011 as per Ex.A.5, token he attended on 18.3.2011 for which except the token details of Ex.A.5, no other material was produced for having consulted with the opposite party for two weeks and even often getting the dressings done to the wound. He stated after two weeks, he found the finger became bend and could not be stretched straight. Even though he had produced the C.D and photos for the same under Ex.A.6 and A.7 to prove the same whether this abnormality of bending finger could not be stretched straight was due to the alleged wrong treatment or avoidance of further advise for further management by the opposite party are to be proved only by the complainant and for which there is no material is available for the same. It could have been proved by way of medical agent  evidence by approaching the other doctors for consultation or for further management for treatment. Even though the complainant averred in the complaint that he had approaching a surgeon subsequently for consultation by whom he had been advised to undergo the surgery to bring his left hand index finger to a normal position. But the complainant did not stated that the details of the surgeon and why he had not followed the advice to prove the deficiency or wrong treatment by the opposite party. The complainant relied upon the principle of resipsa loquitur by stating that the bend finger itself evidence to prove the case. This could be accepted only if the complainant had proved that he had attended for review after three days as per the advise of the opposite party on 13.3.2011, followed the advice and thereafter only because of negligence of the opposite party alone the finger became bend which could be set right by way of another surgery as advised by the other surgeon for which no details or records produced by the complainant.

 

8.      The opposite party specifically pleaded that they had followed medical protocol as per the procedures in giving treatment to the complainant. By considering the medical records under Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.1, in view of the nature of a cut injury said to have been occurred while cutting fruits and for which by following all normal methods by giving tetanus injection suturing of the cut injury and prescribing necessary anti-biotic for three days and advised for review after three days and the complainant had failed to prove after 13.3.2011, he had followed the advise and as per the medical bill receipt for the purchase of tablets, even though the opposite party prescribed medicines for three days for cap. Cephalexin and Serecetoma each 9 tablets and other two tablets each six to the complainant as per the pharmacy bill under Ex.A.2 purchased each 6-6 and 4-4 tablets instead of 9-9 and 6-4only that itself would go to show that he had not taken the medicines for three days as prescribed by the opposite party and thereby considering all the relevant materials and after perusal of entire material, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove his case by let in any expert evidence or medical literature to support his allegations and relied upon the ruling in 2009 (IV) CPR 164 (NC) and thereby dismissing the complaint with which finding, we find no error, infirmity or irregularity or illegality and thereby the appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly,

 

              In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum in CC 345/2011 dated 26.4.2012, dismissing the complaint.

        No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                       A.K.ANNAMALAI 

MEMBER                                                        PRESIDING JUDL.MEMBER