Date of Filing:25-07-2014
Date of Order:20 -3-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 20th day of March, 2019
C.C.No.460 /2014
Between
P.Jai Prakash S/o.P.Mallesh,
Aged : 38 years, Occupation : Private Service,
R/o.H.No.1-2-361/11, Phool Bagh, Domalguda,
Hyderabad - 29. ……Complainant
And
- StoPiles clinic, rep. by its Director,
Mr.Ranjit Koya, aged: Major,
Occ: Director, Stop Piles Hospital,
Office at Stop Piles Hospital,
Plot No.1110, Opposite to Peddamma Temple,
Road No.55, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
Pin No.500034
- Dr.Vardhachari S/o.Not Known to complainant
Aged : Major, Occupation: General Surgeon,
Office at: Stop Piles Hospital,
Plot No.1110, Opposite to Peddamma Temple,
Road No.55, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
Pin No.500034 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Sri P.Veerabhadra Rao
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Sri T.S.R.Prasad
.
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties and in consequence of it to award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- collected by opposite party for the operation and to award further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant at different hospitals at Tilaknagar and have undergone second surgery in Apollo hospital and to award Rs.25,000/- for loss of one month salary during the treatment period and award further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony suffered by the complainant and cost of this complaint.
- Complainant’s case in brief is that opposite party No.2 is a doctor of opposite party No.1 hospital which posted advertisement to the general public that the opposite parties are providing painless treatment to the persons suffering with problem of Piles. Complainant as a patient of Piles problem approached opposite party No.1hospital and he was promised by opposite party No.2 that the treatment will be completed in a day care procedure and will be painless and it requires only two days bed rest. Believing the same the complainant got admitted in the opposite party No.1 hospital on 26-07-2012 and surgery was conducted to him by opposite party No.2 and was discharged on the same day. Opposite party No.1 hospital raised a bill for an amount of Rs.47,000/- and same was paid by the complainant.
Even after the surgery by opposite party No.2 in the opposite party No.1 hospital complainant got no relief and suffered with severe pain and was unable to sit, walk and lay down on the bed due to unbearable pain. Hence he again visited the opposite parties and enquired about the increase in pain. He was promised by the opposite parties that pain will be reduced gradually on that he returned back to home. But unbearable pain continued and infection increased. Hence again on 29-07-2013 complainant called upon the opposite parties and he was advised to purchase rectal supporter and apply it for reducing the pain and was asked to come on the next day. Accordingly complainant applied rectal supporter but there was no relief from pain. Hence he approached nearby hospital at Tilaknagar and the doctor in the said hospital on inspection told that complainant was infected and thrombosed and was advised medication for three days under his observation and gave pain killer injections.
In the meanwhile the opposite parties called the complainant asked to come for further treatment on 1-08-2012. When the complainant visited opposite party No.1 hospital he was informed that he underwent a new trial procedure which was not succeeded and was infected and advised some antibiotic for cure infection. The opposite party No.2 further admitted that he has not done the procedure as prescribed by Indian Medical Council stating so he gave certain prescription’s for relieving the pain but it was no avail.
Since the pain persisted complainant visited Apollo hospital on 3-8-2012 and the General surgeon in the said hospital informed that emergency operation has to be conducted as the wound was infected and Thrombosed. Accordingly complainant once again underwent surgery in the Apollo hospital for treatment of infection and Thrombosed. Thereafter pain was gradually reduced but not complete cured. He is visiting the doctors even as on today for medication.
The surgery performed by the opposite parties was not prescribed by Indian Medical Council and the opposite parties in a negligent manner did not bother to attend him though he repeatedly complained of severe pain. After the surgery the complainant was not given any appointments by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not obtain consent of the complainant for the procedure followed in the surgery and have not followed the procedure as prescribed by Indian Medical Council and thereby cheated him. Because of negligent surgery by opposite parties complainant suffered mentally and incurred huge expenditure in different hospitals. Hence he got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 17-11-2012 calling upon them to pay damages and compensation for wrong procedure followed and conducting surgery and claimed the damages at Rs.6,00,000/-. The opposite parties gave reply on 11-12-2012 with false and incorrect information. Hence the present complaint.
2. A common written version is filed for both parties admitting conducting of surgery to the complainant in opposite party No.1 hospital but denied the rest of the complainant’s version. The defense set out in the common written version is the that complainant concealed his past medical history and neglected to follow the past treatment, medication and diet regularly hence he alone is responsible for the alleged problems faced by him after the treatment with the opposite parties. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the opposite parties either by advertisements or publication and they have rendered the affective service as is necessary for the treatment sought by the complainant. Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 26-7-2012 and after successful treatment he was discharged on the same day. In fact the complainant was covered under the mediclaim policy and the insurance provider thoroughly reviewed the case and after being satisfied with the method of treatment settled the claim.
The allegation of the complainant that a new trial procedure was followed for the surgery is purely invented story of him. The opposite parties have followed the standard procedure adopted for the treatment. The complainant did not inform previous surgery underwent by him for rectal prolapse using a mesh about the suture applied at the anus for his prolapse and he did not bring documentation of it. During the consultation the ring was not palpable on Per rectal examination as it was higher level in anal region and complainant was informed clearly that the second part of the procedure was not completed due to anal ring obstruction. Hence, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties are negligent and adopted a new trial procedure for the surgery is absolutely false. Similarly the allegation of the complainant that his consent was not obtained for the procedure adopted in conducting surgery is totally false. The staff of the opposite parties voluntarily spoke and explained the procedure and the doctor’s of complainant’s choice also provided documentation to help other doctors treating him and understand the case clearly. The opposite parties counseled the complainant very patiently despite his impulsive reactions and assumptions.
Opposite parties had exercised utmost care and diligence in treating the complainant basing on the past medical record and problem being faced by him. The manner in which the complainant had made allegations regarding the treatment and deficiency in service itself shows he is trying to enrich himself, unjustly and unfairly at the cost of opposite parties. The complaint is frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merits hence deserved to be dismissed.
In the enquiry stage the complainant has got filed evidence affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and to support the same he got exhibited 15 documents. For the Opposite Parties evidence affidavit Director of opposite party No.1 hospital is got filed and substance of the same is in tune with the defense set out in the written version. No document is exhibited by the opposite parties. Both sides have filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant could be able to establish that the opposite parties have followed a new trial procedure in conducting surgery to him and thereby could establish medical negligence on their part ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: Complainant in evidence of taking of treatment in Tilaknagar Hospital subsequent to the surgery conducted by opposite party No.2 in opposite party No.1 hospital has filed the record Ex.A4 and thereafter further treatment by way of surgery in Apollo hospital filed Ex.A6 and in none of the medical records there is a mention that either infection or Thrombosed was result of a new trial procedure adopted by the opposite party No.2 doctor while conducting surgery in opposite party No.1 hospital. Before filing of the present complaint, the complainant has got issued a legal notice in Ex.A10 on 17-11-2012 and the present complaint was filed 2 months after the said notice. So Ex.A10 notice is earliest in point of time. In the said notice he has not mentioned as to who informed that the procedure adopted by the opposite parties in conducting surgery was a trial one. It is more important because the opposite parties in the written version categorically stated that they have not undergone new trial procedure.
One of the allegation made in the complaint is that the opposite parties did not bother to attend him after the surgery and they did not give appointment to him. According to the complainant the surgery conducted to him was on 26-07-2012 and when pain became unbearable he stated to have visited the opposite parties and they have reported to him that the pain will be gradually reduced on that he returned back to home and when pain persisted again visited opposite parties on 29-07-2013. If this is to be believed after the surgery complainant discharged on 26-7-2012 and he might have visited the opposite parties either on 27-07-2012 or 28-07-2012 before prescribing him some antibiotics by the opposite party on 29-07-2013. When he could make two (2) visits in a span of 3 days where is the question of not giving him an appointment by the opposite parties subsequent to surgery is not explained. The complainant is conveniently silent as to the date of first visit after conducting surgery on 26-7-2012. He mentioned only 29-07-2013 on which he called opposite parties and explained unbearable pain even after surgery. Even according to the complainant he visited Tilaknagar hospital on 1-8-2012 but the prescription filed by the complainant under Ex.A4 shows he visited Tilaknagar hospital on 30-07-2012 i.,e on the very next day of giving same prescription by the opposite parties.
As could be seen from Ex.A4 prescription from Tilak nagar hospital he was prescribed 4 types of medicines for 5 days. But before completion of 5 days course he visited Apollo hospital on 3-08-2012 and took treatment and got discharged on 6-8-2012 and discharge summary from the Department of General Surgery of Apollo hospital there is no mention of a defective procedure in the surgery conducted by the opposite parties. In a case of medical negligence the self serving statement of complainant is not sufficient the believe the allegation of the medical negligence and what is required is an expert opinion and complainant failed to file evidence of that nature. The opposite parties have categorically stated that the complainant during the course of consultation did not disclose the past medical history and failed to follow the post treatment medication and diet regulation. It is further mentioned that in the earlier surgery underwent by the complainant there was a rectal prolapse using a mesh and application of sutures. It is further stated that the complainant did not bring the earlier medical documentation which has not been denied by the complainant.
In his evidence affidavit and this itself shows that the complainant has suppressed the earlier treatment while in consultation with the opposite parties . As already said the subsequent medical record filed by the complainant also does not disclose that either infection or Thrombosed are result of a negligence or due to adopting of new method while conducting surgery on 26-7-2012. Absolutely there is no material on record to believe the complainant’s allegation that opposite parties acted in a negligent manner while giving treatment to him. Accordingly point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.2: In view of the findings to point No.1 it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 20th day of March , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1is discharge summary dated 26-07-2012 issued by opposite parties
Ex.A2 is doctor’s prescription dated 26-07-2012 issued by opposite parties
Ex.A3 is doctor’s prescription dated 01-08-2012 issued by opposite parties
Ex.A4 is prescription issued by Tilak Nagar hospital dt.30-7-2012
Ex.A5 is discharge summary dated 6-8-2012 issued by Apollo hospital
Ex.A6 is bill issued by Apollo hospital
Ex.A7 is doctor’s prescription of Apollo Hospital dated 11-08-2012 and 18-08-2012
Ex.A8 is doctor’s prescription issued by Satya Diagnostics dated 13-09-2012
Ex.A9 is doctor’s prescription issued by Global Hospital dated 24-09-2012 and 3-10-2012
Ex.A10 is legal notice e issued by complainant dated 17-11-2012
Ex.A11 is reply notice dated 11-12-2012
Ex.A12 is pharmacy bills/ receipts in Nos.3
Ex.A13 is Review consultation fee receipts in Nos.6
Ex.A14 is Stopiles hospital final bill dated 26-07-2012
Ex.A15 is standard treatment guidelines general surgery
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties : Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
