Kerala

Idukki

CC/148/2020

Libin kuriakose - Complainant(s)

Versus

St john's hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:Jeen kurian

28 Jan 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 17/11/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of January 2023

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.148/2020

Between

Complainant                                     :  Libin Kuriakose, S/o Kuriakose,

                                                             Pulimoottil House,

                                                             Kalthotty P.O., Idukki District

                                                             (By Adv.Jeen Kurian)

                                                              And

Opposite Party                                   :1 .  St.Johns Hospital,

                                                                  Represented by its Managing Director,

                                                                  Kattappana P.O., Idukki District.

                                                             2 . Dr.Jose Zachariah,

                                                                  Department of Orthopadiac, 

                                                                  St.Johns Hospital, Kattappana P.O.,

                                                                   Idukki District.

                                                                    (Both by Adv.Johnson Joseph)

.

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 

1 . Complainant was admitted in the first opposite party hospital under IP number 693418 as inpatient for the treatment of his right hand fingers, history of crush injury, which was fractured in an accident on 13/03/2019.  On investigation conducted by the second opposite party,  wound, lacerations and fracture on the right arm middle ring a little fingers of  complainant were found and second opposite party had admitted the complainant after bandaging the fractured fingers.  The treatment was started after  complainant was subjected to X-rays.  On inspection and investigation based on x-ray

(Cont.....2)

-2-

report, the second opposite party seemed to be of evasive and wound of the complainant  was bandaged with an assurance that there is nothing serious in nature was found our after thorough investigation.  Complainant was given assurance by the second opposite party that, there is nothing to be worried of any deformity after treatment as the first opposite party   is the best hospital in the locality.  After bandaging the wound, complainant was provided with medications etc and he was discharged from the hospital after two days, on 15/03/2019.  During these two days of stay at the first opposite party hospital by complainant, for the treatment as the hospital of the opposite party, the complainant was charged with Rs.8085/- towards expense including Medicine, Surgery.  Thereafter charge, nursing care etc, until the discharge date only.  Second opposite party had also prescribed some medicine.  Opposite parties have charged exorbitant and arbitrary amount towards price of tablets and services provided to the complainant, irrespective of the factum of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  First opposite party levied imaginary charges from  complainant with a fraudulent intention to obtain illegal monetary gain.  The first opposite party had done aforesaid acts with an intention to wrongfully gaining monetary benefit from the poor complainant.  Complainant was not aware of the actual prices for the medicines, including both tablets and injections and the services at the time of treatment.  Complainant’s wounds were not attended or treated in the operation not there was a wound debridement as billed out but the opposite party has mercilessly charging exorbitant service charges including operation and operation theatre charge what is being done at the hospital of the opposite party is against the government norms and conditions.  Though  opposite party had attended and bandaged the wounded fingers of  complainant, it was without proper care and facility, and done not in the operation theatre, and by which complainant’s right arm fingers are not fully functional.  It was caused only  due  to  the  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  opposite parties.  Second

(Cont.....3)

-3-

opposite party was cunningly following the readymade plot of the first opposite party to charge exorbitant amount for the medical care and thereby making profit for both opposite parties.

2 . Thereafter,  complainant was advised to visit  the hospital again for review and for getting the wounds dressed up and for further continuation of medicine.  Complainant was charged with huge amount for each of such visits.  After 4 weeks of discharge and prompt continuation of medication as suggested by the opposite party, though the wounds were healed, there was no improvement.  The complainant could not move his fractured fingers freely, and the stiffened fingers prevented the complainant from doing normal activities with the right hand including writing.  Being disappointed by this, complainant informed the opposite party about exorbitant amount that opposite party had snatched from complainant after providing unsatisfactory service and the present pathetic condition of  complainant’s arm is not cured and even he cannot do anything with right arm and earn income thereby for livelihood. Moreover,  complainant  is a KPSC aspirant who have been preparing and attending PSC examinations. Now,  as his right arm fingers are not working properly, he cannot write or even hold a pen.  The right hand wrist of the complainant is paralyzed due to the unprofessional medical care provided by opposite party.  But  opposite parties, at  that time humiliated the complainant by saying that he had been charged with the least amount and provided the best medical care than any hospital at Kattappana would have charged for the same treatment and medicine including tablets and injections.  Opposite parties shouldn’t have treated complainant if they couldn’t provide him with a proper medical care that would benefit him rather than making him a lifelong cripple.  Opposite parties are responsible for the present pathetic condition of complainant and they are liable to compensate him for that.

(Cont.....4)

-4-

3 . Opposite parties purposefully for making unlawful gain from complainant had mislead the complainant and levied excess amount towards medications provided by him.  Complainant was not given a proper treatment nor did the opposite party conduct a serious and accurate investigation on the wound and fracture occurred to complainant.  The above act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service.

4 . Complainant was not liable to pay the exorbitant charges towards medicines according to illegal demand of the opposite party.  The improper treatment given by opposite party has caused much damage to complainant.  The act of the opposite party had caused irreparable injury and hardship to the complainant.  Complainant sustained huge loss of money, physical damage and mental agony due to the illegal act of the opposite party and the opposite party is under liability to compensate the same.

5 . In the said circumstances it is highly necessary to call upon the opposite party and direct him to compensate the complainant for the unlawful gain and medical negligence of the opposite party.

Hence complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

1 . Allow complainant to realize Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) towards medical negligence and physical damage.

2 . Allow complainant to realize Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation toward deficiency in service and exorbitant charging of medicinal charges for unlawful gain.

3 . Allow complainant to realize sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages and mental agony sustained and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this complaint.

 

(Cont.....5)

-5-

Upon notice from the Commission, opposite parties have appeared before the Commission and filed detailed written version.  Their contentions are discussed hereunder.

1 . All the averments in the complaint pertaining to the opposite parties and which are not expressly admitted hereunder are false and hence denied.

2 . The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is frivolous, vexatious and devoid of truth or bona fides.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by complainant.  Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint.

3 . The averments in the complaint are ill framed, ill advised and filed solely for the undue financial advantage of complainant.  Hence opposite parties humbly submit the true facts of the case that complainant was brought to the Emergency Department in first opposite party hospital at 4.10 pm on 13/03/2019 with injury to his right hand fingers following an alleged road traffic accident.  On clinical examination crushed nature of injury was noted on right index finger, dorsal bone deep skin lacerations over MP joint, superficial skin deep laceration middle and ring fingers and extensive circumferential bone deep laceration of little finger with loose bone fragments and cut long extensor of tendon intact ulnar digital neurovascular bundle.

Complainant was given primary wound care and started on medications and X-ray right hand was taken.  The X-ray showed multi fragmental fracture of proximal phalanx little finger.   More specifically x-ray evaluation showed fracture proximal and middle phalanx with particular involvement  right little finger, fracture proximal phalanx ring finger and fracture proximal phalanx middle finger.  The x-ray findings were informed and explained to complainant and his bystanders and suggested would suturing for which he

(Cont.....6)

-6-

was advised admission for observation and continuous IV medications.  Complainant voluntarily consented for admission and surgical procedure and on the same day second opposite party conducted surgical procedure with reasonable care and caution under strict sterile condition.  Initially under regional infiltration of local anaesthetic, wound irrigation and scrubbing with anti septic solution was done.  Tethered long extensor tendon was repaired and the wound was sutured and applied sterile bulky dressing with external splint immobilisation.  The patient was advised to keep the hand elevated and encouraged use of arm pouch sling for ambulation.  The patient was observed for vascularity of little finger and started on IV antibiotics and supportive medications.  On 14/03/2019 finger vascularity and sensations were checked and found well maintained and the patient was a febrile and without any complaints.  As vascularity of finger was found to be satisfactory the complainant was discharged on 15/03/2019 with medication and advised for review on 20/03/2019.  

4 .  Complainant came up for review on 20/03/2019 and on examination wound was found healthy and wound dressing was done and peripheral  vascularity was checked and found satisfactory.  External splint was re-applied and complainant was prescribed medicines and advised review on 29/03/2019.  For follow up review the complainant reported on 29/03/2019 and wound examination showed proper healing and hence sutures were partially removed, dressing was changed and external splint age was applied and x-ray evaluation was also done and findings were within normal limits.  Thereafter complainant did not turn up for review and lost further follow up.  Complainant had follow up review only for 2 weeks since the date of discharge and on the date of last review wound condition and fracture healing was proper and satisfactory.

 

(Cont.....7)

-7-

Complainant did not have any complaint with regard to the modality of management or any dispute regarding treatment expenses at any point of time during the course of treatment.  If the complainant had any difficulty with the right hand finger activities as alleged in the complaint he ought to have reported the same to the opposite parties but he did not turn up for review consultations after 29/03/2019.  During the course of review consultations there had been no problem either in wound healing. Vascularity, sensation or movement of fingers.  Opposite parties cannot be held liable for further event if any happened later which was not reported to them either.  In the diagnosis and treatment of complainant second opposite party had exercised reasonable skill, care and caution and done the procedures in strict regard to accepted medical practice and protocol.  Complaint is filed purely on an experimental basis disputing the hospital bills without any bonafide on the part of the complainant.  There is no merit in the complaint  challenging the charges levied for the treatment in the first  opposite party  hospital as the complainant was well informed about the expenses and various heads under which the amount was charged in the bill.  There was absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are not liable to compensate the complainant either jointly or severally.

5 . The averments stated in para 2 of the complaint are highly  ill motivated and hence denied.  The allegation that the on inspection and investigation based on x-ray the second opposite party seemed to be evasive and wound was bandaged with an assurance that there was nothing serious in nature was found out through investigation is false and misleading and hence denied.  The clinical as well as x-ray findings as detailed above were discussed with the complainant and no assurance as stated in the complaint was given to the complainant.  The second opposite party had followed standard medical practice and done the procedure with reasonable care and

(Cont.....8)

-8-

caution and no medical practitioner is expected to give any assurance regarding outcome treatment that there would not be any complication or deformity later.  The allegation that the opposite parties charged exorbitant and arbitrary amount towards price of tablets and service denied. Further allegation that the first opposite party levied imaginary charges from the complainant with fraudulent intention to obtain illegal monetary gain is also ill motivated and hence denied.  The expenses incurred for the treatment under various heads were well explained to the complainant and his case that he was not aware of actual price of medicines and treatment services is devoid of any substance or merit and hence denied.  The complainant’s case that wound was not attended and treated in operation theatre  and exorbitant service charges  were levied against government norms and conditions is unfounded and unsustainable and hence denied.  The complainant had sustained crushed injury with fracture fingers with cut long extensor tendon which needed wound exploration under local anaesthesia, repair of tendon extensor and debridement is the procedure of removal of foreign materials and damaged tissues in the wound.  The allegation that wound was attended and bandaged without proper care and facility by which the complainant’s right arm fingers are not fully functional is ill motivated and hence denied.  The allegation of negligence  and deficiency in service made against the opposite parties is fictitious and mounted on undue financial motivation and hence denied.  The allegation that the second opposite party was cunning following the readymade plot of the first opposite party to charge exorbitant amount and thereby making profit is highly ill motivated and hence denied.

6 . The averments stated in para 3 of the complaint are falsely and purposely cooked up for undue financial gain and hence denied.  The statement that the complainant  was charged with huge amount for each review consultation is baseless and hence denied.  Complainant did not report

(Cont.....9)

-9-

any such difficulties at any point of time during review consultations or thereafter and the averments in the complaint regarding functional difficulties or right hand are solely cooked up for the purpose of complaint.  The stiffness or functional inefficiency after healing of fracture if present could have been treated and cured with physiotherapy but the complainant lost for follow up and hence the alleged difficulties even if proved cannot attribute to be due to any act or omission on the part of opposite parties.

Second opposite party had treated the complainant with due care and caution and there was absolutely no negligence or deficiency from the part of the opposite parties and they are not liable to compensate the complainant.

7 . The allegations put forth in para 4 of the complaint are highly ill motivated and hence denied. 

8 . The averments put forth in para 5 of the complaint are not tenable or sustainable and hence denied.  Complainant had settled the hospital bills without raising any protest or complaint regarding modality of treatment and the present complaint is framed as an afterthought for undue financial gain.  Complainant was provided proper care and treatment on the basis of proper investigations and no damage has been caused to him by the treatment of the opposite parties.  No injury, loss or hardship was caused to the complainant by the treatment of the opposite parties as alleged by him and hence the opposite parties cannot be held liable for compensation.

9 . The amount quantified as compensation is highly exorbitant, exaggerated and without any substance, merit or rationale behind it and hence denied.  In the light of the above mentioned facts the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant either by way of compensation or otherwise.

 

(Cont.....10)

-10-

10  . Complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties as stated in the complaint.  First opposite party hospital is a well renowned hospital with adequate treatment facilities proving proper medical care and treatment to patients strictly in compliance with norms and guidelines.  Complaint is framed with an ulterior motive of undue gain and with a view to tarnish the goodwill of the hospital.  Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission be pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite parties.

Complainant has filed proof affidavit.  He was examined as PW1.  Exts P1 to P7 were marked.  Opposite parties have not filed proof affidavit.  No oral evidence adduced by them.  Exts.R1 and R2 were marked on the side of opposite parties.  Opposite parties have submitted argument notes.  No notes filed by complainant.  Now, the points which arise for consideration are :-

1. Whether the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs entitled to complainant?

The points are considered together

We have gone through complaint and written version.  Also, we have perused proof affidavit and marked documents.  Complainant was admitted in 1^st opposite party hospital for the treatment of his right hand fingers on 13/03/2019 and he was discharged on 15/03/2019.  This is proved as per discharge summary which was marked as Ext.P1.  Review dated 20/03/2019 was mentioned in this discharge summary.  As per Ext.R2, it is seen that treatment of complainant was follow up by opposite parties on 20/03/2019 and 29/03/2019.  According to complainant, his right hand arm fingers are not working properly, he cannot write or even hold a pen and right hand wrist is paralyzed due to the unprofessional medical care provided by opposite parties.  But, this is not proved.  It is not seen that complainant made

(Cont.....11)

-11-

any complaint with regard to the treatment at any time to opposite parties.

 On the perusal of Ext.R2, we have found that treatment of complainant was follow up on such review dates and the wound was examined, the sutures were partially removed, dressing was changed and x-ray evaluation was done and again review after two weeks was mentioned.  Complainant has deposed in his cross examination that he didn’t turn up for review after 29/03/2019 and instead of that, he had gone to Co-Operative Hospital, Kattappana on 13/04/2019.  Accordingly, it was under the treatment in such hospital and also he was referred to hospital in Coimbathore.  The superintendent of such Co-Operative Hospital had produced case sheet including registration details and it was marked as Ext.R1.  Under the Ext.R1 documents, we have found that complainant has gone to Co-Operative Hospital on 19/11/2020 for coldness and allergy.  Also, it is not evident as per this document that complainant had gone to Co-Operative Hospital for the treatment of his fingers on 13/04/2019.  But as per Ext.P6, complainant was referred to Ganga Hospital, Coimbathore on 13/04/2019.  Complainant has produced out patient record from Dr.Anand’s Ortho Care, Cumbum, Theni which was marked as Ext.P7.  As per this P7 document, it cannot be seen that complainant was admitted for inpatient treatment in such hospital for Trauma in hand.  After the review from Opposite parties, complainant has not taken any further treatment in any other hospitals.   On the basis of that, we are of the view that further treatment for his fingers is not needed.  Moreover, it is not seen in Ext.P7 that complainant was informed from such Dr.Anand’s Ortho Care Hospital that a steel rod had to be implanted at the earliest stage into his fingers and now it cannot be possible.  Also, complainant has not adduced evidence to prove that his right arm fingers are not functional in the present condition.  No disability certificate is produced by complainant before the Commission.

(Cont.....12)

-12-

Moreover, complainant has put his signature in the proof affidavit.  Also, he has deposed in cross examination that he has put the signature with suffering huge pain in the middle finger.  He has signed the complaint, but has no case that it had caused any pain.  Complainant has signed in his deposition also.  Hence, we are of the opinion that he can move his fingers freely though he states that he has some pain for these fingers.  There is no evidence adduced that opposite parties didn’t conduct proper treatment and accurate investigation on the wound.

Complainant couldn’t prove the negligence on the part of opposite parties.  Complainant has also alleged that opposite parties have charged exorbitant amount towards price of tablets and services provided to him.  Eventhough he has produced the bills which were issued by opposite parties, no evidence adduced whether opposite parties had charged exorbitant amount for medicines and treatment to complainant.  From the deposition of complainant, it can be understood that he has no knowledge about the price of medicines and other treatment such as surgery provided by opposite parties.  Moreover, he has not adduced any evidence to prove that excess amount was charged than the actual price and how much would be the original price for such medicines and treatment.  Hence deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties are not proved.  As the complainant failed to prove his case, complaint is dismissed without cost.

Extra copies to be taken back by parties without delay.

 

 Pronounced by this Commission on this the   28^th  day of January, 2023.

                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                               SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER  

                                                                                         Sd/-                       

                                                                        SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                   Sd/-                                                                               

                                                                               SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER        

                                                                        (Cont.....13)

-13-

                                                                                          

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 – Libin Kuriakose

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 – Discharge Summary of St.John’s Hospital, Kattappana

Ext.P2(s) – Bill of St.John’s Hospital, Kattappana dated 13/03/2019

Ext.P3 – IP Discharge bill of St.John’s Hospital, Kattappana dated 15/03/2019

Ext.P4 – X-Ray Sheet

Ext.P5- Pharmacy Sheet of St.John’s Hospital, Kattappana

Ext.P6 – Referring letter from Co-Operative Hospital

Ext.P7 – Dr.Anand’s Ortho Care , Out Patient Record

 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 -  Out Patient’s Department - Records from Co-Operative Hospital

Ext.R2 – Patient’s Record –St.Johns Hospital, Kattappana.

 

 

                                                                                               Forwarded by Order  

 

 

                                                                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR