IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 17/2008 (Filed on 25.02.2008) Between: Geevarghese T.G., Thanimmoottil House, Nellickappara, Kokkathodu P.O., Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. D. Radhakrishnan Nair) .... Complainant. And: 1. Swami Saswathikananda Mission- Hospital, represented by its Managing Director, Swami Saswathikanada Mission- Hospital, Konni P.O., Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. S. Mohankumar) 2. S. Unnikrishnan, Surgeon, Swami Saswathikanada Mission- Hospital, Konni P.O., Pathanamthitta. Addl.3. The Managing Director, Believers Church Medical Centre, Konni. (By Adv. Roy Varghese) .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he was admitted at the first opposite party hospital on 14.04.2007 for treating a tab injury sustained to him. Since the injury was serious in nature, the second opposite party admitted him and conducted an immediate surgery at the portion where the stab injury was sustained. The complainant was an inpatient at that hospital till 27.04.2007. Subsequent to the surgery, the complainant had pain at the operated portion. The second opposite party prescribed various medicines for the complainant’s ailments and he was discharged on 27.04.2007. But the complainant was not relieved from the pain. Instead infection developed over the wounds. Thereafter on 12.05.2007 to 16.05.2007 the complainant was again admitted at the hospital for further treatment. During that time, the second opposite party removed puss from the wound by pressing the wound. The complainant was taking the medicines prescribed by the second opposite party regularly. Even after all this, the complainant was not relieved from his ailments. So the complainant was taken to Government Hospital, Pathanamthitta by his relatives, where the doctor advised for an X-ray and after examining the X-ray, the doctor told that some hard object found in the stomach of the complainant. On the basis of the diagnosis, the complainant was subjected for another surgery at Government Hospital, Pathanamthitta and removed a bundle of thread used for suturing. The doctors in Government Hospital, Pathanamthitta told the complainant and his relatives that the stitching threads found in the stomach of the complainant was used by the opposite parties at the time of the first surgery. Due to the treatment of the complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta, the complainant was partially recovered from his ailment and he needs further treatment for a complete recovery. The complainant was put to such a situation due to the negligence and deficiency of service of the opposite parties. The complainant was charged with huge bills and prescribed various medicines. The above said act of the opposite parties is negligent, clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant was put to mental agony, physical distress and financial loss and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence, this complaint for the realisation of ` 2,97,300 from the opposite parties under various heads with interest and cost. 3. The first opposite party filed their version with the following main contentions: The first opposite party admitted the admission and the treatment of the complainant from 14.04.2007 at the first opposite party hospital by the second opposite party. The first opposite party had no business with the treatment and the treatment was done by the doctor’s incharge of the first opposite party in an emergent situation. The complainant had been provided with proper medical aid and attention by the first opposite party. The complainant was taken to the hospital in a critical situation. The allegations that the injury become ulcerous and suppurates within 3 to 4 days of operation and he was discharged on 27.04.2007 are supramundane and the said allegation cannot go together. The complainant is an alcoholic and his body has not reconciled with the medicines administered at the inception, and later the complainant was cured under the best treatment rendered by the opposite parties and he was discharged on 27.04.2007. 4. The complainant had no case that he was treated as inpatient for a prolonged time unnecessarily and he was discharged in a serious condition or referred to any other hospital for further treatments. After the discharge of the complainant, he consumed illicit arrack, which worsened his physical condition, and he was again brought to the first opposite party and treated there. The complainant had not taken medicines as advised by the doctors and he continued consumption of alcohol against their advice. It is false to say that doctors squeezed puss from a suppurated wound resulted from a stab injury on left chest and abdomen with multiple visceral injuries such as fractured left costal margin diaphrymatic injury, injuries on the anterior wall of stomach, ileum, small bowel and neumoperitoneum etc., as it is impossible. The complainant was provided with excellent treatment, and as a result of which he regained his physical health. It is admitted that the complainant was charged for his treatments. But the treatment expenses of ` 47,300 and the expenditure of ` 50,000 for the purchase of medicines claimed by the complainant has to be proved by supporting documents. The doctors prescribed necessary medicines notwithstanding its value. They had given prime importance for the life of the complainant than the price of the medicines. The complainant might have underwent further treatment in some other hospitals. The allegation of negligent treatment by the opposite parties is false. The thread used for suture may be allergic to some persons. If the complainant would have occasioned such an allergy, he ought to have approached the opposite parties with such a complaint. The allegation that a bundle of thread is found inside the wound of the complainant is false. The allegation that the pain and damages of the complainant is due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and prescribed unnecessary medicines and given huge bills are also false. The opposite parties never caused deficiency of service nor charged with high bills. There is no business mind with the opposite parties in treating the patients. The allegation that he had suffered mental pain and bodily discomfort due to the negligent treatment is false. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, as they have not committed any deficiency of service or negligence in the treatment of the complainant. The complainant neither sustained any mental pain or physical pain from the opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or cost as claimed in the complaint. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The second opposite party is exparte. 6. During the pendency of this complaint, an institution in the name Believers Church purchased the first opposite party hospital and hence the complainant impleaded the said institution as the additional third opposite party in the party array of this complaint. 7. The additional third opposite party filed a separate version with the following main contentions: The additional third opposite party purchased the first opposite party hospital on 02.08.2008 whereas the alleged medical negligence was occurred in between 14.04.2007 and 27.04.2007 which means that the treatment of the complainant was prior to the purchase of the hospital by the additional third opposite party. As per the sale agreement between the first opposite party and the additional third opposite party, the first opposite party is responsible for all the claims in connection with the incidents happened before the date of sale. The second opposite party is not in the service of the additional third opposite party and the alleged incidents happened at the time when the hospital was owned and possessed by the first opposite party. Therefore and as per the sale agreement, the additional third opposite party is not liable for the acts of the second opposite party. With the above contentions, the additional third opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint against the additional third opposite party with their cost as they had not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant and as they have purchased the hospital after the alleged incident took place. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be decided is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the oral depositions of PWs.1 to 3 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 10. The point: The complainant’s allegations against the opposite parties is that the complainant was admitted at the first opposite party hospital on 14.04.2007 following stab injury sustained at his abdominal portion. The second opposite party conducted an immediate surgery to the complainant. The complainant felt severe pain on the operated portion and after 3, 4 days from the surgery, infection caused to the operated portion. The second opposite party had given various medicines and discharged the complainant on 27.04.2007. He was again admitted at the hospital as his wounds become more infected and he had undergone treatment till 16.05.2007 as inpatient. During these days, the second opposite party removed puss from the wounds by pressing the wounds at the operated site. The complainant was regularly taken the medicines prescribed by the second opposite party. But his ailments were not cured. So the complainant was taken to General Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 18.06.2007 for further treatment. The doctors at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta found a bundle of thread used for suturing inside the operated wounds of the complainant in an X-ray. The bundle of thread found in the wound of the complainant was removed by the doctors of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta by an operation. According to the complainant, the complications of the complainant was due to the bundle of thread seen in the wound and this happened due to the negligent treatment at the second opposite party. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had sustained financial loss, mental agony, physical distress and discomfort. All the complications of the complainant was due to the negligence of the second opposite party who had not removed the balance thread used during suturing of the complainant’s wound. 11. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the discharge summary dated 27.04.2007 issued by the first opposite party in respect of the treatment of the complainant. Ext.A2 to Exts.A2(13) are the hospital bills issued by the first opposite party hospital in connection with the treatment of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the O.P. card dated 18.06.2007 issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant. Ext.A4 is the discharge card dated 26.06.2007 issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in connection with the treatment of the complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A5 is the copy of the identity card issued by the Asst. Labour Office in the name of the complainant as per Kerala Head Load Workers’ Act, 1978. Ext.A6 is the attested copy of case sheet issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in connection with the treatment of the complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta from 19.06.2007 to 26.06.2007. 12. On the other hand, the first opposite party’s contention is that the first opposite party had provided all facilities for the treatment of the complainant. The treatment was done by the second opposite party. According to the first opposite party, the second opposite party had not committed any negligence in his treatment to the complainant. All treatments given to the complainant is as per the medical ethics and are warranted in the circumstances. They have given proper medicines and they have charged the complainant reasonably. The complainant was discharged on 27.04.2007 without refering him for further treatment as he did not require further treatment. But he again came to the hospital for worsened physical condition due to consumption of illicit arrack and due to the non-consumption medicines against medical advice. This time also, the complainant was properly treated. The thread used for suture may be allergic to some persons. If he would have occasioned such an allergy, he ought to have approached the opposite party for further treatment. But the complainant never approached the opposite parties with such a complaint. The allegation that bundle of thread was not removed from the wound after suture is false. Since the opposite parties provided best treatment to the complainant, the allegation of negligent treatment and deficiency in service is baseless. 13. In order to prove the contention of the first opposite party, the first opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But they have cross-examined the complainant and his witnesses. The second opposite party is exparte. 14. The additional third opposite party’s contention is that the alleged incident took place prior to the purchase of the first opposite party hospital by the additional third opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the sale, the additional third opposite party is not liable for the liabilities, if any, of the first opposite party occurred prior to the purchase of the hospital by the additional third opposite party. According to the additional third opposite party, the treatment records in respect of the treatment by the first opposite party does not discloses any negligent treatment or deficiency of service from the part of the first and second opposite parties. 15. In order to prove the contentions of the additional third opposite party, the Administrator of the additional third opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 marked. Ext.B1 is the treatment records pertaining to the treatment of the complainant at the first opposite party hospital from 14.04.2007 onwards. 16. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on records and found that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the treatment of the complainant at the first opposite party’s hospital. The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the quality of treatment given to the complainant by the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the second opposite party treated him negligently which developed severe complications to the complainant. Therefore, he was compelled to obtain further treatments at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta for the recovery of his complications caused due to the negligent treatment of the second opposite party. According to the complainant, the infection caused to the wound of the complainant was due to the reason that the second opposite party had not removed the balance thread from the wound after the surgery and suturing. The said bundle of thread remained in the wound was removed at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta. After the removal of the said thread, the complainant’s wound was healed and he was recovered from the complications. But the available evidence does not reveal anything to show that a bundle of thread was seen in the wound of PW1 as claimed by him. However, Exts.A3, 4 & 6 shows that PW1 had undergone further surgery and treatment at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta subsequent to the treatment of opposite parties and it was a continuation to the previous treatment. So it is clear that the treatment at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta is for the complication developed after the treatment of the opposite parties. In this connection deposition of PW2 is relevant. PW2 who is the doctor of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta who had treated the complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta deposed before this Forum that the complainant’s complication was stitch abscess and opined that the complainant was not seen provided with proper treatment for the complication of stitch abscess at the opposite parties’ hospital. The relevant portion of deposition of PW2 is as follows: Fsâ NnInÕsb XpSÀ¶mWv Sn KohÀ¤okv kpJw {]m]n¨Xv (QA). P\d Bip]{Xnbn Snbm\v abscess drainage \S¯nbn«pv. Hm¸tdjsâ kab¯v Sn KohÀ¤oknsâ t\cs¯ Hm¸tdj³ sNbvXncp¶ `mK¯v (Dffn \n¶v) stitching materials (suture materials) absorb sN¿s¸Sm¯ \nebn ImWs¸SpIbpw AXv remove sN¿pIbpw sNbvXp. Suture materials-sâ km¶n²yw sImmWv ]gp¸v DmbXv. (QA)...........................t\ct¯ NnInÕn¨ Bip]{Xnbn CXn\v Bhiyamb NnInÕ e`n¨ncp¶nà F¶v a\Ênem¡mw...............................km[mcW KXnbn Hm¸tdj³ \S¡p¶ Bip]{Xnbnse XpSÀ NnInÕbn CXv ]cnlcn¡mhp¶XmWv....................... Ext.A1- ]dbp¶ ]cn¡pIÄ Dmb HcmÄ¡v NnInÕ XpSÀ¶p \S¯m¯Xp aqetam (Rest, aZy]m\w, ITn\ tPmen) stitch abscess DmInÃ. 17. The above said deposition of PW2 cuts the root of the contentions of the opposite parties. In view of the above-mentioned facts and evidences, it can be seen that the complication of the complainant was due to the negligent treatment of the second opposite party in the first opposite party’s hospital. Therefore, and in the absence of any cogent evidence to support the contentions of first opposite party, we find that there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties in the treatment of the complainant. However, the complainant failed to adduce any cogent evidence for quantifying the loss and damages sustained by the complainant due to the negligence of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is allowable with modifications. Since the second opposite party is the staff of the first opposite party, the first opposite party is vicariously liable to the complainant. The available evidence shows that the additional third opposite party purchased the hospital subsequent to the treatment of the complainant with specific agreement executed between the parties, showing that the first opposite party is responsible for all the liabilities prior to the transfer of the hospital to the additional third opposite party. In the circumstances, we find that second and third opposite parties are not liable to the complainant. 18. In the result, this complaint is allowed partly, thereby the first opposite party is directed to pay an amount of ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation and to return 50% of the treatment expenses collected by the first opposite party vide Exts.A2 series bills and receipts with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of this complaint along with cost of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount ordered herein above with 10% interest per annum from today till the realisation of the whole amount. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Geevarghese. PW2 : Dr. Sasi. P. PW3 : George. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Discharge summary dated 27.04.2007 issued by the first opposite party in respect of the treatment of the complainant. A2 to A2(13) : Hospital bills issued by the first opposite party hospital in connection with the treatment of the complainant. A3 : O.P. card dated 18.06.2007 issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant. A4 : Discharge card dated 26.06.2007 issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in connection with the treatment of the complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta. A5 : Photocopy of the identity card issued by the Asst. Labour Officer, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant as per Kerala Head Load Workers’ Act, 1978. A6 : Attested copy of case sheet issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in connection with the treatment of the complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta from 19.06.2007 to 26.06.2007. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Dr. Abraham. B. Meleth. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Treatment records pertaining to the treatment of the complainant at the first opposite party hospital from 14.04.2007 onwards. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Geevarghese T.G., Thanimmoottil House, Nellickappara, Kokkathodu P.O., Pathanamthitta. (2) Managing Director, Swami Saswathikananda Mission Hospital, Konni P.O., Pathanamthitta. (3) S. Unnikrishnan, Surgeon, Swami Saswathikananda Mission Hospital, Konni P.O., Pathanamthitta. (4) The Managing Director, Believers Church Medical Centre, Konni. (5) The Stock File. | 
