By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant was alcoholic and he was admitted in the first Opposite Party hospital for deaddiction treatment on 27.10.2016. He was treated there till 24.11.2016 by the second Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties have not allowed bystanders for the Complainant. That being so, the doctors or nurse of Opposite Parties have not cared to attend and observe the Complainant.On the third day of treatment, his left hand was tied in the cot. Thereafter, he was given some strong medicines and so he became unconscious. After the administration of medicines and due to lack of attention, the Complainant fell down on the floor from the cot and the left hand of Complainant was paralysed due to left brachial plexus injury caused. The cousin of the Complainant saw him on next day morning and on his request, the duty doctor attended the Complainant. This incident was happened due to negligence from the part of Opposite Parties.It was the legal duty of Opposite Parties to observe and care the Complainant during intervals after the administration of heavy medicines.So, the Complainant was constrained to take treatment from Medical College Hospital, Calicut and even now he is continuing physiotherapy and other medicines including homeo medicine. Thereby, the Complainant suffered heavy mental agony, mental and physical pain. He has also spent lot of money and time for treatment. Therefore,there is deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Parties and thus this complaint to get Rs.10 lakh as compensation with litigation expenses.
3. The Opposite Parties filed version which in short is as follows:-
This compliant has been filed solely for the undue financial advantages. The Complainant was admitted in the first Opposite Party, hospital for de addiction treatment for alcoholism on 27.10.2016. He was closely monitored and checked vital signs. Since, there is chance of such patients developing withdrawal symptoms and risk of turning to restless and violent mood causing self-harm and injury to others, specific instruction was given to have bystanders throughout hospital stay. On 31.10.2016, the Complainant had shown withdrawal symptoms and became restless, irritable and violent. Hence, he was given sedatives and restraint him with soft restrains as a precautionary measure to avoid inflicting self-injury and injury to others. The persons who came along withpatientwere the members of Alcoholic Anonymous members and there were no relatives along with the patient. So, thosepersons did not stayed along with patient as bystanders. In the course of treatment, cervical radiculoneuropathy was suspected and he was referred for physiotherapy. He was sent for CT brain to rule out any brain pathology and referred to ortho consultation. CT showed normal findings. As per the consultation of orthopaedic Surgeon, a diagnosis of neuro-praxia was made and treatment continued with physiotherapy and medication. As the condition was not improved with physiotherapy, nerve conduction study was done and the report showed left brachialplexus lesion with demyelination and neuropraxia. Physiotherapy continued and the Complainant was referred for neurosurgical consultation and discharged on 29.11.2016 with an advice for neurosurgical evaluation at Medical College Hospital. This condition can happen due to nerve compression by the violent movement of the patient due to withdrawal symptoms. Sedatives and soft restrain instruments using belt etc are being used in the management of patient with good intention to prevent harm and violent activities. The second Opposite Party being the treating doctor had given specific instructions to bystanders and nursing staff for care and attention of the patient showing withdrawal symptoms. So, there is no negligence on the part of the treating doctors and they cannot be held liable alleging that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. The second Opposite Party attended and treated the Complainant with reasonable care and caution. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get anything from Opposite Parties. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite
Parties?.
2. Reliefs and Costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, PW2, OPW1 to OPW3, Ext.A1 to A11, Ext.X1 series and X2 series. Both sides heard.
6.Point No.1:- Admittedly, the Complainant was admitted in the first Opposite Party, hospital for de-addiction treatment on 27.10.2016 and he was treated by second Opposite Party, doctor. It is also an admitted fact that after the treatment he was discharged on 24.11.2016. The grievance of the Complainant is that on the third day of treatment, his left hand was tied on cot and thereafter, gave some strong medicines which made the Complainant unconscious. According to him, therefore, he fell down from cot and his left hand was hanging from the cot. His further case is that the Opposite Parties have not allowed the bystanders with him and therefore only next morning his cousin saw this situation and requested the duty doctor to attend the Complainant. So, the main complaint of the Complainant is that thereafter, his left hand was paralysed due to left brachial plexus injury and thus he faced heavy mental agony, mental and physical pain and he spent lot of money. On the other hand, Opposite Parties defend the complaint stating that there was no negligence, no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice from them. According to them, they used to tie the de-addiction patients to avoid inflicting self and injury to others due to restless and violent mood. They further contented that they allowed bystanders with him and the suspected cervical radiculoneuropathy is not connected with the treatment from the first Opposite Party hospital.
7. To prove the case of Complainant, he has given evidence as PW1, and his brother has given evidence as PW2. To disprove the case of Complainant, the second Opposite Party has given evidence as OPW1. They have also examined OPW2 and OPW3.
8. As stated above, the Complainant’s case is that due to lack of attention during the treatment by the second Opposite Party in the first Opposite Party hospital, he fell down from the cot and his left hand was paralysed due to left brachial plexus injury. According to him, thereby after discharge from first Opposite Party hospital he continued treatment for this disease. PW1 has given evidence in conformity with his case. One of his brothers, PW2 has supported the case of PW1 with regard to the fall and subsequent disorder. The Complainant has produced and marked Ext.A1 to A11 which are medical treatment records. Ext.X1 and X2 series were produced to substantiate the contents in Ext.A1 to A11. Ext.A1 to A11 are the treatment records of PW1 which are related to neuro treatment. Ext.X1 series and X2 series are the records kept in first Opposite Party hospital and Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. But none of these medical records would go to show that these treatments are connected with the fall of the Complainant when he was in the first Opposite Party, hospital and subsequent alleged paralyse. None of the documents contain that there was negligence from the second Opposite Party during the de-addiction treatment in the first Opposite Party, hospital. The Complainant has not examined any expert doctor to prove that his subsequent treatment has any connection with the administering of alleged medicines by second Opposite Party and subsequent fall. Here, there is no materials to show that such and such strong medicines were applied by second Opposite Party. As already stated, the Opposite Parties denied the allegation and according to them, they never gave strong medicines and if anything happened to the Complainant, the reason for this is not connected with the treatment of second Opposite Party. Second Opposite Party was examined before this Commission as OPW1 and he has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. But he was not cross-examined by Complainant. Therefore, the evidence of OPW1 denying the allegation of the Complainant with reasons is not challenged. In these circumstances, the evidence of PW1 without any expert evidence is rebutted by the evidence of OPW1. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to prove that he got the alleged problems only due the treatment of OPW1. So, we have to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove his case. So the point is answered against the Complainant.
9. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the Complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23rd day of November 2022.
Date of Filing:-11.05.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Benny Joseph. Agriculture.
PW2. Bijoy. K. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Dr. C. K. Gopalan. Doctor Physician.
OPW2. M. M. Sebastian. Agriculture.
OPW3. Dr. Suresh Kumar. T. P. Doctor.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of MRI Study of Brachial Plexus with Screening of Whole
Spine. Dt:26.11.2016.
A2. Copy of Letter.
A3. CT Brain-Plain. Dt:04.11.2016.
A4. Nerve Conduction Study. Dt:13.11.2016.
A5. Discharge/Referral Card from Government Homeo Hospital
Manathavady.
A6. Discharge/Referral Card from Government Homeo Hospital
Manathavady.
A7. Prescription Form for Prosthetic and Orthotic Section.
Dt:10.03.2017.
A8. Copy of Certificate for the Persons with Disabilities.
Dt:21.04.2017.
A9. Prescription.
A10. Prescription. Dt:06.12.2016.
A11. Prescription. Dt:05.03.2017.
X1(Series). Original Case Sheet (39 pages).
X2(Series). Copy of Case Record produced from Medical College Hospital,
Kozhikode (18 Pages).
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
