1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the impugned Order dated 25.11.2013, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 853/2012 filed by the Opposite Parties was allowed and the Consumer Complaint was dismissed.  For the convenience, the parties are stated as mentioned in the original Complaint.

2.       The case of the Complainant that she suffered blister like swelling and pain in her left leg which was initially treated at  General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram (OP-2) and thereafter in Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram (OP-3), but there was no improvement.  It was alleged that due to wrong medicines her normal left forearm became stiff and also lost her fingers. Being aggrieved by the permanent disability caused because of negligence and failure to give effective treatment by OP-2 & 3, she filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram.

3.       The District Forum held OP-2 & 3 liable for medical negligence and allowed the Complaint with direction to pay Rs.3 lacs as a compensation within two months from the date of Order.    The OP-1-State of Kerala was  exempted from the liability. 

4.       Being aggrieved, First Appeal filed by the OPs before the State Commission, Kerala was allowed.  The Order of the District Forum was set aside, consequently the Consumer Complaint was dismissed.

5.       Being aggrieved, the Complainant/Petitioner filed the instant Revision Petition.

6.       Heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for the Respondents (OPs) and perused the written arguments already filed by the Complainant/Petitioner. I have also perused the medical record of General Hospital (OP-2) and Medical College Hospital (OP-3).

7.       The grouse of the Complainant that during treatment from 21.3.2002 to 30.3.2002 at OP-2 & 3 wrong diagnosis was made.   She was given wrong medicines in excessive dose and some injections without test dose.  Thus, it was negligent care led to serious damage to her left hand.

8.       On careful perusal of medical record of General Hospital, it is evident that on 21.03.2002 the patient was admitted with the complaints of swelling of both legs with peeling of skin from both hands and thighs, also complaining of itching throughout the body. It was diagnosed as Exfoliative Dermatitis with Raynaud’s phenomenon.  She was treated with antibiotics, anti-allergic and steroid drugs.  She was also advised vasodilators and skin ointment.  It is pertinent to note that the steroid was given in tapering doses till 30.03.2002.  Thereafter, she was referred to Medical College Hospital for further investigations and management.

9.       In the instant case, the replies given by Dr. M. Unnikrishnan are more relevant.   Dr. M. Unnikrishnan was the Professor of Vascular surgery at Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvanantharuram.  He stated that the Exfoliative Dermatitis was not due to drugs in the instant case.  It is further to note that the patient developed thrombosis of Axillary Artery, in my view, it was neither due to wrong medication nor due to Exfoliative Dermatitis.  The opinion of Head of the Department of Surgery at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram carries more important at this stage.  According to him, at General Hospital and at their Medical College appropriate treatment was given to the patient.  The relevant part of the opinion is reproduced as below:

“On admission her peripheral pulsations on the left arm were absent. An emergency Doppler was done and the patient was detected to have axillary artery thrombosis.  The case was referred to the Thoracic surgeon for expert opinion and he advised thromboembolectomy after explaining the poor prognosis to the patient and by-standers.  Since there was no Fogarty’s Catheter available in the hospital, Fogarty’s cathetor (costing around Rs.1000) in the possession of Dr. R.C. Sreekumar, qualified Vascular surgeon was used to do embolectomy, and it was done on 01.04.2002.  The Thromboembolus was removed from the axillary, brachial, and radial arteries.

Since the patient was detected to have a systolic murmer, the patient was also referred to Cardiology Department.  They advised an Echocardiogram costing Rs.400/-.  The chief of S6 unit certified that the patient was too poor to pay to enable waiver of the above charges.

During her stay from 30.03.2002 to 08.05.2002 in the Medical College hospital, repeated consultations were made with Thoracic Orthopaedics and vascular surgeons.

Since the arteries were completely occluded for a long time prior to admission, the viability of the distal part of the arm could not be salvaged in spite of the best efforts of the various surgical teams.  Many of the drugs required were supplied by Superintendent, Medical college Hospital without cost.  At no time during the patient’s stay in the hospital was there any private consultations with any of the doctors treating her.

The patient was discharged on 8.5.02 with appropriate advise for further management and reviews.

These facts are as per records available in the hospital.”

10.     Thus, it clearly indicates that OP-2 & 3 treated the patient and further embolectomy was performed by the qualified Vascular surgeon.  The treating doctors performed their duties with reasonable care and skills. It is pertinent to note that the medicine Dexamethasone will not cause axillary artery thrombosis even if the patient is diabetic.  I agree with the observations of the State Commission that the District Forum without considering the evidence held the OPs liable for deficiency in service and negligence. The District Forum based on surmises and presumptions wrongly held the OP-2 & 3 liable for medical negligence.

11.     Based on the discussion above, no negligence is attributed to the Opposite Parties.  The axillary artery thrombosis was not due to any wrong treatment of the OPs.  It was due to long standing diabetic and hypertensive status of the patient, for that OPs shall not be held responsible. The Complainant/Petitioner placed photographs of her left hand to show her deformity, but in my view, it was not due to deficiency or negligence during treatment from the OPs. The patient suffered deformity due to axillary artery thrombosis, which is a totally distinct and different entity having no relation with the treatment (drugs) given by the OPs.

12.     Though, I have sympathy for the patient for her sufferings but it cannot translate into a legal remedy.  

The Revision Petition lacks merit, the same is dismissed.