Tamil Nadu

Thiruvallur

CC/04/2012

U.Kathirvel, s/o A.Ulaganathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, - Opp.Party(s)

P.Palani

01 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                                   Date of Filling    : 26.03.2012

                                                                    Date of Disposal: 01.09.2015

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR

 

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,     …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc.,                       …    MEMBER-I

CC.04/2012

Tuesday, the Day 01^st day of September 2015

 

U.Kathirvel

S/o Mr.A.Ulaganathan,

No.6/2, Silapathigara Street,

Srinivasa Nagar,

Chennai-600 063.                                  …Complainant

 

                                                                      /Vs/

 

The Director,

‘Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre’,

No.1, Ramachandra Nagar,

Porur, Chennai-116.

                                                                …Opposite Party

                                                            ….

 

 

 

Counsel for the complainant          :  Thiru.P.Palani, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite party     :   Thiru. A.R.Poovannan, Advocate                                                         

                                                     

         

This Complaint was originally  filed  before the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Chengalpattu, in CC.No.81/2005 and thereafter as per the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, this case was taken on file by this Forum in CC.No.4/2012 on 02.03.2012.

This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 18.08.2015 in the presence Thiru.P.Palani, Advocate on the side of the complainant and Thiru.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,

                       

ORDER

 

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

 

            This Complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking direction that the complainant has to refund the sum of Rs.19,147/- paid for the treatment and Rs.1,000/- for miscellaneous expenditure and to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the opposite party.

The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:

1. The complainant was suffering from upper limp and lower limp and pain in the

neck and consulted the Neurology Department of the opposite party’s centre, as an outpatient on 19.05.2005 as advised by the opposite party department. He was admitted in the opposite party’s hospital as in-patient on 20.05.2005.

2. The neurology has taken the MRI Brain, Echocardiogram, EEG, Nerve

condition study and other Blood tests. A psychiatrist consult was also got by the Department (as stated in the summary of Discharge) It is observed from the Discharge summary that the studies done by the hospital were found to be normal.

3. However, in the final Diagnosis, it has been stated that the patient had

cerebrovascular Ischemia, Transient Ischemic Attack, Cervical Radiculopathy, etc., Though the various tests taken by the authorities were found to be normal, the patient was treated as a sun stroke patient in the hospital and provided various medicines for him, without analyzing the disease in critical. The patient was discharged from the hospital on 25.05.2005, advising him to continue to take the same medicines, provided in the hospital as an in-patient continuously and come up for periodical check-up once in 15 days. The patent has further been informed by the doctors that the Neuro medicines would be taken continuously for a period of 3 years.

4. Though the patient had been discharged and taking medicines, as advised by

them, he felt untold vigorous pain, he was again admitted in another hospital viz., Malar Hospitals, Chennai-20, on 01.06.2005, to set right his condition for which he had spent an additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. The hospital authorities have referred the in-patient to the neurosurgeon. The Neurosurgeon (Dr.B.Ravi Ramamurthy) after thorough examination has stated that the patient has no difficult- Neck and shoulder movements restricted due to pain.  The Doctor has advised neck exercises for relief and has not given any Neuro medicines to the patient.

5. In the discharge summary, the Malar hospital authorities have stated that the

patient was admitted for observation and diagnostic clarification regarding his left sided pain and was assessed Neurologically by Dr.Biswakumar and Dr.Rangarajan and his Epiepileptic andCerebrovascular Medication were withdrawn on to have, No Neurological problem and accordingly, the Neuro medicines given by the Neurosurgeon of Sri.Ramachandra Medical Centre (SRMC) were stopped by the hospital forthwith and discharged him on 08.06.2005.

6. After hearing the opinions of the Doctors, the complainant and the family

heavily shocked and afraid, if the medicines prescribed by the Neurosurgeon of Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre could have ben continued to the patient till date, the Doctors may know very well the condition of the patient would have become very worst for the wrong treatment given to him by the SRMC. Because of this, wrong treatment, the patient had mental tension for which he is being treated psychosocial stresses and put on anti-depressonate and postural excercises.  The complainant has waited after he discharged from the Malar Hospital on 08.06.2005, for his improved condition of the pain, as stated by him earlier.  With the exercises instructed by the Doctors of Malar Hospital and by the God’s Grace, the complainant has improved very well and has no pain till now, without taking any Neuro medicines prescribed by the SRMC.

7. Apart from the wrong treatment given to the patient, the complainant and his

family shocked on noticing the Discharge Summary wherein the SRMC have recorded that the complainant (Mr.U.Kathirvel) “is a known smoker, known Alcoholic” which is not correct, as the complainant is not a smoker or alcoholic man, as recorded in the Discharge Summary. It may be worth to mention here that the complainant is not in the habit of taking even tea/coffee in the house or elsewhere.  The neurosurgeon of Malar Hospitals ascertained the patient’s habits and recorded that “Does not do either” in the Discharge Summary of the SRMC.

8. The complainant also caused legal notice to the opposite party hospital on

23.08.2005 and the same was acknowledged on 25.08.2005 but no reply was sent by the opposite party till date.

            9. For wrong diagnosis and prescribing wrong medicines, as the complainant’s condition was deteriorated after taking the Neuro medicines prescribed by the SRMC. The hospital authorities have also damaged the complainant’s personality by mentioning in the Discharge Summary that the complainant “is a known smoker, known alcoholic” without any base and that the patient’s image has been spoiled to one hospital to other hospital.  Hence the complaint.

 

The contention of the written version of the opposite party has brief as follows

            1. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

            2. The various allegations stated in the complaint are hereby specifically denied, except that one admitted hereinafter as true.

            3. It is true that the complainant came to Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre for alleged medical complaints of his and he was treated appropriately.  But, the other allegations including that the patient was treated as Sun stroke patient; medicines given without analyzing the disease in critical, he felt untold vigorous pain and he was admitted in Malar Hospital to set right his condition and spent Rs.10,000/- the Neuro Surgeon at Malar Hospital advised otherwise; at the advice of Neuro Surgeon of Malar Hospital the medicines given by the Neuro Surgeon of Malar Hospital opined that if medicines prescribed by the Neuro Surgeon of SRMC had been continued, the condition of the complainant would have become very worst for the wrong treatment given by the SRMC; because of the wrong treatment, the patient had mental tension and put on anti-depressants and postural exercise; he had improved due to treatment given by Malar Hospital and by God’s grace without taking any medicines prescribed by the SRMC has not analyzed the disease properly before prescribing any neuro medicines and the complainant was given wrong treatment; his image is affected badly due to false statement in the discharge summary and he had mental tension; and SRMC apart from given wrong treatment, had damaged his personality, etc., contained in the complaint are false, untrue and incorrect.

            4. The complainant was admitted on 20.05.2005 for investigations and treatment of his left upper and lower limp numbness and pain of acute onset associated with neck pain. The patient had a background of systemic hypertension with polycystic kidneys. Three weeks prior to admission, he had an episode of giddiness and alteration in sensorium while at work, as recorded in the history given by the patient and his relatives.

            5. The opposite party submits that keeing in mind the presenting complaints, necessary investigations were performed, which included MRI of brain, EEG, Heamatological and biochemical tests, Echocardiogram as well as nerve conduction studies.

            6. During admission also, the complainant had focal involuntary movement of his upper limb on 25.05.2005 which was witnessed by the duty neurologist and recorded in the case sheet. For better observations and monitoring he was shifted to B4 stroke ward.

            7. Since the reports of all the above investigations were normal, the psychiatrist was called in for consultation and he diagnosed the possibility of ‘conversion disorder’ in mind. It is relevant to note that this possibility had been entertained by the psychiatrist, because investigations were normal. ‘Conversion disorder’ (or any related psychiatrist disorder) cannot be diagnosed finally without having ruled out organic cause; in this case, it was cerebrovascular disease (due to presence of hypertension polycystic kidneys) and cervical rediclopathy (due to neck pain numbness of left limbs) the patient was discharged from the hospital on 25.05.2005 only after his condition had improved.

            8. This opposite party submits that the patient was readmitted to another hospital with fresh symptoms of pain. This, however, is not due to the medicines as mentioned in the complaint. It is alleged that the Neuro Surgeion of Malar Hospital told the complainant that he had difficulty and neck and shoulder movements restricted due to pain and medications were withdrawn as there was no neurological problem. Obsiously, the decisions as regards treatment given to the complainant at SRMC were taken, based on the investigations done for him, i.e., imaging electro physiology and blood tests performed at SRMC. Normal investigations do not rule out episodic disorders like seizures or cerebrovascular disease like transient ischemic attacks.  The complainant was investigated systematically as his symptoms and signs evolved during his hospital stay.  Hence, it is wrong to content that the patient was given wrong treatment at SRMC; on the contrary withdrawal of treatment under such circumstances is likely to do more harm to the patient.  Hence, there is no justification for the allegations that (i) his symptoms were not analyzed carefully; (ii) wrong investigations were performed; and (iii) wrong treatment was given.

            9. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of doctor or on SRMC.  The complainant was properly analyzed, properly treated with appropriate medicines.  The complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant is not entitled to be claim. Hence the complaint is liable to dismissed.

            10. In order to prove the case of the complaint, the complainant filed his proof affidavit as his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A9 are marked on the side of the complainant.  Similarly the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party for his defence and Exhibit B1 is marked on his side.

11. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether there is any medical negligence on the part of the opposite party as alleged in that complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for?

12. Written arguments submitted by both the sides and the copy of the same is

furnished to either parties. In addition to that oral arguments also adduced on both sides.

            13. Point 1: According to the case of the complainant is that, when the complainant went to the opposite party’s hospital for treatment on 19.05.2005 for having suffering pain in the neck as an out patient and he was given T.Eption tablet and there was no relief and hence the complainant again reported the hospital on 20.05.2005. Without application of mind, the opposite party admitted the complainant as inpatient and was taken various tests including blood test and the result of the said various tests shows normal and then the complainant was discharged the hospital on 25.05.2005 by prescribing the medicines and advised to take medicine for 3 years continuously and to come up for periodical check up once in 15 days.  It is further alleged that even the complainant was taking the prescribed medicines as advised, but no relief from the pain and continuous to suffer and therefore he was forced the consult the Doctor from the Malar Hospital, Adayar to set right his conditions.  But there it was diagnosed that no neuro medicine needed and the physical exercises is only sufficient and the complainant got relief from the advised by the Doctor at Malar Hospital and from the discharge summary issued by the Malar Hospital, it is learnt that the  opposite party’s hospital has  done negligence and thereby caused loss an injury to the complainant.

            14. While so, the opposite party contended that the allegation made in the complaint are all denied and in fact at the time of admission, the complainant had a background of systematic hypertension with polycystic kidneys and three weeks prior to the admission he had an episode of giddiness and alteration in sensorium while at work, as recorded in the history given by the patient and his relatives. Accordingly the investigation, that performed and the reports of the same shows that they were normal , the psychiatrist was called in for consultation and he diagnosed the possibility of ‘conversion disorder’ in mind and it is relevant to note that this possibility has been

entertained by the psychiatrist, because investigations were normal viz ‘Conversion disorder’ cannot be diagnosed finally without having ruled out organic cause; in this case, cerebrovascular disease and Cervical Radiculopathy and the complainant was discharged from the hospital only after his condition is proved.

15. It is further contended that normal investigation do not rule out by episodic disorders like seizures or cerebrovascular disease like transient ischemic attacks. Therefore the complainant was properly analyzed treated with appropriate medicine and hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

16. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is an admitted fact that the complainant was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital of the opposite party on 20.05.2005 for suffering of neck pain and after various tests have been taken during investigation and complainant was discharged from the hospital on 25.05.2015

            17.  At the outset, the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the allegations made against the opposite party, in the complaint by means of relevant and acceptable evidence.  First of all, on going through the proof affidavit of the complainant it is learnt that the complainant was treated as an outpatient on 19.05.2005 for which the Exhibit A1 and A2 marked and admitted in the opposite party’s hospital on 20.05.2005 for the suffering of neck pain and discharged on 25.05.2005 and during the period in between the above dates various tests were taken in the opposite party’s hospital which clearly shows that everything was normal and the doctor attached the opposite party’s hospital advised to take neuro medicine continuously for 3 years and even taking the medicine,  the complainant felt untold vigorous  pain.  The discharge summary given by the opposite party’s hospital is marked as Exhibit A3.  It is further learnt from the evidence that the complainant was again admitted in the Malar Hospital, Adayar on 01.06.2005 to set right his health condition and he was admitted an inpatient and the neuro surgeon Mr. Ravi Ramamurthi,  after thorough examination has stated that the complainant has no difficult- Neck and shoulder movements restricted due to pain and Doctor has advised neck exercises for relief and has not given any Neuro medicines to him and the medicine sheet issued by the said doctor and the discharge summary issued by the Malar Hospital are marked as Exhibits A4 and A5 respectively.

            18. Further, it is learnt from the proof affidavit of the complainant it is alleged that the opposite party has taken unnecessary tests and given wrong treatment and thereby  the complainant spent huge amount of Rs.19,147/-, towards hospital charges and miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.1,000/- by means of Exhibit A6 and Exhibit A7, receipts given by the opposite party’s hospital. In spite of issued the legal notice Exhibit A8, to the opposite party and the same was received by the opposite party and the Acknowledgment card is marked as Exhibit A9, the opposite party has not at all replied which itself clearly reveals the fact of medical negligence as well as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

            19. At the outset, on the side of the opposite party it is spted that all the allegations placed against the opposite party are all false and vexatious and in fact  the opposite party has provided appropriate treatment and properly analyzed with appropriate test and medicine in the complaint reported by the complainant and his relative. At this juncture, it is seen from  Exhibit B1, the entire case sheet of the complainant from 20.05.2005, which is clearly shows the periodical investigations and tests done by the opposite party’s doctors on obtaining the consent for the necessary treatment and to adopt all procedure with the complainant, which are consider necessary for the health condition of the complainant at the time of admission in the opposite party’s hospital and therefore there is no iota of evidence for the medical negligence and deficiency of service.

            20. In such circumstances, first of all on careful perusal of the Exhibit B1, the case sheet of the complainant filed by the opposite party it is crystal clear that the complainant was admitted on 20.05.2005 with the opposite party’s hospital as an inpatient.  Further it is learnt that at the time of admission the complainant came with complaints of numbness of left upper limp and lower limp for the last 15 days and pain in the neck for the last 15 days and the complainant has severe pain in the neck which radiated to the left upper limp and lower limp started  actually 15 days back and also having paraesthesia, numbness in the left upper limp and lower limp which is persist and also he  is  known case of polycystic kidney disease with systemic hypertension for which he is on treatment.  It is further noticed from Exhibit B1, the complainant has given authorization for proceedings with treatment which was signed by him, thereby he has given consent for the necessary treatment and all procedure and will not hold doctors  nor the hospital administration for any consequences. More over, Exhibit B1 clearly showed the day do day investigations and observations taken for the complainant on the result of the various tests have been embodied and the medicines prescribed day to day advice of the doctors concern. Such being the situation, on seeing the discharge summary, that the complainant has been discharged on 25.05.2005 with advice of taking some medicines continuously.  It is pertinent to note that there is no specific version for taking the said medicines continuously for 3 years as alleged by the complainant in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit.

            21. At this juncture the foremost duty of this Forum is as to whether there is any medical negligence and deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant on the part of the opposite party decided. Regarding this as if  already pointed out that  from Exhibit B1, it is crystal clear that the opposite party had concentrated for better observation and monitoring and for proper diagnosis, only the opposite party has accordingly performed the investigations since the normal investigations cannot be diagnosed the conversion disorders. It is relevant to note that  during the admission in the opposite party’s hospital, the complainant was properly analyzed and treated with appropriate medicine as pointed out by the opposite party.  In such circumstances, it is just necessary to see the Exhibit A4 and A5.  First of all on going through the Exhibit A4 dated 06.06.2005 which is given by Dr.Ravi Ramamoorthy, Neuro surgeon who is attached with the Malar Hospital, Adaiyar, which reveals that the complainant has pain left hand and funny feeling. Mild pain left forearm 20 days and pain back of the neck.  It is further noticed that MRI and MRA Brain -NAD and X-Ray C-spine both AP & lateral view were taken.  At this point of time, on perusal of the Exhibit A5, the discharge summary issued by the Malar Hospital, it is learnt that the complainant was admitted as an inpatient on 01.06.2005 and discharged on 08.06.2005.  Thus the complainant was an inpatient for 8 days for the diagnosis as Dysthymic Disorder. 

22. As per the Exhibit A5, it is noted that epiepileptic and cerebro vascular medication were with drawn on to have no neurological problem.  Counseling session with him and his family was helpful in identifying and addressing psychosocial stresses. He has been put on anti depressant and postural exercises and he has been advised regular follow up and counseling. From this above Exhibit A4 and Exhibit A5,  it is crystal clear that the complainant having some problem in the neck as well as having sufferings as truss at the time of admission both in the opposite party’s hospital as well as in the Malar Hospital.  More so, it is pertinent to note that, in Malar Hospital also, the complainant was admitted for 8 days and advised for certain investigations and tests.  But to show, what are all tests and investigations have been done in the Malar Hospital, no document produced on the side of the complainant which clearly creates some doubts and also it is goes without saying that the complainant has not come forward to prove the allegations made against the opposite party beyond doubts. At this point of time this Forum wants to enlighten that if the case sheet of the complainant from the Malar Hospital produced, then only it can be easily to arrive just decision of this case in hand.  But the complainant has failed to do so. Not only that the Exhibit A5 has not revealed anything about the medical negligence committed by the opposite party during the treatment of the complainant in the opposite party’s hospital. Further, except Exhibit A5, there is no other expert opinion produced by the complainant to prove the medical negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and also failed to take steps for the same through this Forum.

23. In the light of above facts and circumstances, this Forum can very well seen that the complainant has not moved this Forum with clean hands and hence it can be  easily to hold without any hesitation that there is no medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Regarding other allegations,   there is no ioto of evidence to prove on the side of the complainant. Thus the Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

24. Point 2: As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1, it is decided that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as   prayed    for in the complaint.  Thus the point no.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 1^st  September 2015.                                                                                                                                          

Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER I                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of Documents filed by the complainant

Ex.A1/Dt.19.05.2005: Xerox copy of the Doctor Notes Sheet of the complainant given        

                                    by the opposite party’s Hospital.

 

Ex.A2/Dt.                   : Xerox copy of the prescription of the complainant given by the    

                                     opposite party.

 

Ex.A3/Dt.20.05.2005: Xerox copy of the Discharge Summary of the complainant given      

                                   by the opposite party’s hospital.

Ex.A4/Dt.06.06.2005: Xerox copy of the Discharge Summary of the complainant given       

                                   by the said Dr. Ravi Ramamurthi.

Ex.A5/Dt.08.06.2005: Xerox copy of the Discharge summary of the complainant given

                                    by the said Malar Hospital.

Ex.A6/Dt.20.05.2005: Xerox copy of the SRMC & RI(DU) report of the complainant

                                     given by the opposite party’s hospital.

Ex.A7/Dt.25.05.2005: Xerox copy of the SRMC & RI(DU) report of the complainant

                                   given by the opposite party’s hospital.

Ex.A8/Dt.23.08.2005: The Xerox copy of the Legal Notice sent by complainant’s                                 

                                   Father to the opposite party.

Ex.A9/Dt.25.08.2005: Postal acknowledgment card of the opposite party.

List of Documents filed by the Opposite Party

Ex.B1/Dt.       : Case Sheet of the complainant given by the Opposite party.

Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER I                                                                                                    PRESIDENT