CC Filed on 30.03.2010<br /> Disposed on 08.10.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 08th day of October 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 27/2010<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. M. Manjunath,<br /> S/o. Sri Muniswamappa,<br /> Aged about 28 years,<br /> R/at Hunegal Village,<br /> Chickballapura Taluk & District.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. V. Vishwanath) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> -V/s-<br /> <br /> 1. Sri Manjunatha Hospital,<br /> Dodda Bhajane Mane Road,<br /> Chickaballapur <br /> Taluk & District – 562 101.<br /> <br /> 2. Dr. Suresh Chand Sharma,<br /> Sri Manjunatha Hospital,<br /> Dodda Bhajane Mane Road,<br /> Chickaballapur <br /> Taluk & District – 562 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.K. Sampath Kumar & others)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency in service by OP.2 in treating the male child of the complainant and for sufferings and mental agony suffered by him and to pay costs of Rs.15,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is having a male baby born on 11.07.2009 who is not yet named. The said baby was suffering from fever on 13.10.2009. Hence the complainant and his wife took the baby to OP.1 hospital on 13.10.2009 at about 07 p.m. At that time OP.2 was the duty Doctor in children ward. OP.2 examined the baby and prescribed a syrup by name “Swich” or “Cefpodocire” with instruction to administer the syrup orally daily two times to an extent of 1.25 ml. per dose and OP.2 assured that fever would subside gradually within two-three days and asked to bring the baby after 2-3 days for checkup. The complainant and his wife administered the syrup as prescribed, but to the shock and surprise of them on 14.10.2009 they found number of bubbles filled with liquid on the entire body of the baby and the fever did not come down, on the other hand it was increasing and the condition of the baby was deteriorating and serious. Immediately the baby was taken to OP.1 hospital. OP.2 was not present in the hospital and it was informed that OP.2 was on leave for Divali Festival. When the complainant requested the other Doctor on duty to treat the baby he told that OP.2 was the only Child Specialist and in his absence no other can attend the sick baby and advised the complainant to take the baby to other hospital. <br /> <br /> Then the complainant took his baby to Pathi Hospital, Chickballapur Town and the doctor in that hospital gave first aid and referred the child to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore. Thereafter the complainant took the child for treatment to Neha Prakash Hospital, Yelahanka New Town on 16.10.2009. By that time the child was in a very serious condition and in Neha Prakash Hospital, Dr. Shanthala Girish, Children Specialist who was on duty perused the earlier treatment summary of the baby and on examination of the baby Dr. Shanthala Girish opined that the syrup “Swich” prescribed by OP.2 was not meant to be administered to a child below two years and it was not advisable to administer the said medicine on an infant aged 2-3 months like the baby of complainant. The baby was admitted at Neha Prakash Hospital on 16.10.2009 itself and was discharged on 21.10.2009 after improvement and recovery of the condition of the baby. It is alleged that the complainant spent Rs.1,000/- at Pathi Hospital, Chickballapur and Rs.50,000/- at Neha Prakash Hospital and he also incurred huge expenses for traveling, food, etc., It is alleged that there is every chance of leaving scar/marks over the major portion of the body of baby even if the bubbles have cured and in that event the complainant is required to incur further expense of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore he filed the complaint before the Forum on 30.03.2010. <br /> <br /> 3. Both OPs appeared and filed version signed by OP.2 and OP.1 adopted the said version. In the version the OPs mainly stated as follows: It is admitted the baby of complainant was brought to OP.1 hospital when OP.2 was in-charge of pediatric ward. It is admitted that the baby was suffering from fever and OP.2 after examination prescribed “Swich” or “Cefpodoxine” syrup to be administered as advised in his prescription. They admitted that on 14.10.2009 OP.2 was on leave for Diwali Festival. They denied all other allegations. They contended that OP.2 is a qualified and experienced Pediatrician with immense experience in Neonatology. They contended that the said syrup can be prescribed for fever for baby aged 2-3 months as suggested by OP.2. They denied that Dr. Shanthala Girish opining and stating before complainant that the said syrup is a powerful drug and that it should be given only to child aged above 2 years and not advisable to administer it on infants aged less than 2-3 months. It is contended that usage of the said drug on infants of all age is widely accepted in the field of pediatrics. They referred number of text books on Pediatrics by different authors on this point in para. 7 of their version. They denied that the condition of the baby became serious at any time and the complainant spending so much amount for the treatment. It is contended that OP.1 hospital has other Pediatricians available in the absence of OP.2 and they had not refused to treat the child on 14.10.2009 and the complainant himself voluntarily took the child to some other hospital. Therefore they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed the affidavit in support of his case and also filed the required documents. OP.2 filed his affidavit in support of his defence and also produced the relevant extracts of medical literature. <br /> <br /> 5. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. OP.2 was also present at the time of argument. <br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that OP.2 has<br /> wrongly prescribed the medicine in question to the <br /> complainant’s baby?<br /> <br /> Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to which<br /> reliefs the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.3: To what order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. After considering the materials on record and the submissions of parties our findings are as follows:-<br /> Point No.1: According to the complainant he administered the medicine prescribed by OP.2 as suggested, but on 14.10.2009 he noticed number of bubbles filled with liquid on the entire body of the baby. He states that on 14.10.2009 itself the baby was taken to Pathi Hospital, Chickballapur and the Doctor gave first aid treatment and referred the baby to major hospital. The complainant took the baby to Neha Prakash Hospital, Yelahanka New Town on 16.10.2009. He states that in Neha Prakash Hospital he explained to the Dr. Shanthala Girish a Peditrician that after oral administration of syrup prescribed by OP.2, bubbles were found on the body of the baby. Further his main case is that Dr. Shanthala Girish on examination of the medicine prescribed by OP.2, opined that the syrup “Swich” prescribed by OP.2 is a very strong syrup and the same has to be administered to the child aged over two years and not advisable to administer it on the infant aged 2-3 months. Complainant does not specifically say in his complaint that Dr. Shanthala Girish told him that administration of medicine prescribed by OP.2 was the cause for appearing the bubbles on the body of baby. The discharge summary issued by Neha Prakash Hospital does not say that administration of medicine prescribed by OP.2 was responsible for causing the bubbles on the body of baby. In the ‘diagnosis’ column of the discharge summary it is only suspected whether there was drug reaction due to ‘Cepodoxine’. The discharge summary does not contain a statement that the drug prescribed by OP.2 should not have been prescribed in the case of complainant’s child aged about 3 months. Therefore this discharge summary does not support the say of complainant that the drug prescribed by OP.2 should not have been prescribed for a baby aged about three months. That part of the material allegation of the complaint could have been proved only by producing the evidence of Dr. Shanthala Girish, but the complainant has not produced her evidence. The OPs have denied emphatically this allegation made by complainant. On the other hand they referred the text books on Pediatrics of different authors to show that the medicine prescribed by OP.2 is generally prescribed to the children of all ages but with different quantity of dosage. <br /> <br /> During arguments OP.2 submitted that the rashes found on the body of baby were not due to the administration of syrup prescribed by him and it must have been due to some infection. He further submitted that the clinical examination reports and history noted at Neha Prakash Hospital show the existence of such infection. In support of his contention that the bubbles would appear due to infection, he relied upon different medical literatures. He also contended that the condition of the baby was not serious as alleged in the complaint and that as per the records of Neha Prakash Hospital the baby was in general ward and if really it was in serious condition it would have been in I.C.U. He also pointed out that if the condition of the baby was serious, the baby would have been taken to the major hospital on 14.10.2009 itself after advise by Pathi Hospital. He pointed out that the baby was taken to Neha Prakash Hospital, Bangalore only on 16.10.2009 i.e. after lapse of two days. <br /> <br /> The complainant can prove his material allegation that the drug prescribed by OP.2 should be prescribed only to the children aged about 2 years and not to the infants below that age, could be proved only on the basis of medical literature or with expert evidence. But he has not produced any evidence to that effect. As already noted bubbles can appear due to infection and according to OP.2 the clinical history noted at Neha Prakash Hospital shows the existence of such infection. If complainant has to show that such infection itself had arisen due to the administration of drug prescribed by OP.2, again he has to lead the expert evidence. Therefore considering the evidence as a whole we hold that the complainant has failed to establish point No.1. Accordingly it is held in negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2 &3: As point No.1 is held in negative the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is Dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 08th day of October 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />