Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

238/2013

M.MuthuKrishnan(M/Age 60),S/o.Late Malayappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE DEAN,Administrative Block, - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.L.Rajaraman

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.12.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  04.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 04^th   DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.238/2013

 

 

 

M.Muthukrishnan (M/Age 60)

S/o. Late Malayappan,

No.63, North Wall Road,

Kondithope,

Chennai – 600 079.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Dean,

Administrative Block,

Govt. Stanley Medical College Hospital,

Old Jail Road,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.Dr.Ravichandran,

Chief Doctor, & (Formerly H.O.D of S.G.E

Room No.304 (3^rd Floor)

Surgical Gastro Entrology Dept.,

Ward No.601, New Building,

Govt. Stanley Medical College Hospital,

Old Jail Road,

Chennai – 600 001.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 13.12.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.A.L.Rajaraman

Counsel for 1st Opposite Party                : Mr.Ponram Rajaa

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                     : M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant was suffering from frequent stomach pains and since the same was unbearable to him, the Complainant went to the Opposite Parties Hospital at Chennai. He was diagnosed by the said Opposite Parties as he was suffering from incredible abnormal pains and sufferings. During the months of January to March 2011, he was admitted in the Opposite Parties hospital as inpatient on 05.04.2011 in the Surgical Gastro Enterology Special Department for the purpose of getting treatment for the said ailment. The Opposite Parties conducted various medical tests and examination on the body of the Complainant and upon the result which stated that Chronic calcific paneratitus with inflammatory had mars with D.M and the Opposite Parties finally advised the Complainant to undergo surgery for the stomach pain.  The surgery was done by the Opposite Parties on 03.05.2011. After the operation, the Opposite Parties gave fitness certificate that the Complainant is completely fit to be discharged from the hospital. Accordingly, the Complainant was discharged from the Opposite Parties hospital on 18.05.2011. At the time of discharge itself, the Complainant informed the Opposite Parties that he had stomach pain which caused uneasiness. However the 2^nd Opposite Party promised that he will turn out fine and there will not be any pain after a day or two. He was regularly taking medicines as prescribed by the Opposite Parties. Only for a period of ten days from the date of discharge the Complainant was alright and subsequently the same stomach pain started to give pain and mental agony to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant again went to the Opposite Parties hospital as outpatient from the month of June to November 2011 and was continuously taking treatment with the Opposite Parties hospital. On 12.12.2011, the Opposite Parties again completely examined the operated portion of the body of the Complainant and admitted that there is a mistake in the operation done by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant was operated upon on 13.12.2011 in a negligent and careless manner by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties act reveals which led to multiple complications, Deficiency in Service. He was again suffering from the very same problem from the month of March 2012 onwards. The Opposite Parties did not cure the disease of the Complainant and not at all had given proper treatment because of the negligent and wrongful treatment, the Complainant was made to undergo surgery for two times. Since the pain and sufferings  continued over and above, the Complainant was not satisfied with the treatment provided by the Opposite Parties and he approached another hospital namely “Voluntary Health Services” (VHS) at Canal  Bank Road, Tharamani, Chennai -  113 for taking good treatment of the said disease. The said V.H.S doctors informed that there is a mistake in the operation done earlier by the Opposite Parties and advised to undergo another operation for the 3^rd time with V.H.S., only then the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Parties committed mistake both the times, he was operated upon. The Complainant was admitted in the said V.H.S. Hospital and undergone treatment from  27^th July 2012 to 7^th December 2012 as in-patient for 3^rd time operation and finally rectified the mistake committed by the Opposite Parties Doctors and the Complainant was also cured by the V.H.S. Doctors treatment only. The Opposite Parties wrongly operated in the same place and abdominal belly and caused incredible Abdominal, pains and sufferings. Thus the Opposite Parties have done the surgery twice in a negligent and deficient manner without any intension to cure the said disease. The surgery and the treatment given to the Complainant caused pain and metal agony, sufferings and also unnecessary monetary expenses to him.  The Complainant after the 3^rd surgery, he is safe and he escaped from the death which could have occurred, if he had not gone to V.H.S. The Complainant was forced to have loss of earnings capacities in future and as a result of mistaken surgery, the entire life of the Complainant was greatly affected and spoiled. The Complainant so far has spent towards medical and other expenses a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-  for the 3^rd operation at the said Voluntary Health Services, Taramani, Chennai-113. The mental and physical agonies by the Complainant has spent and suffered of Rs.8,00,000/-. Thus the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the Complainant for Deficiency in Service in respect of medical negligence committed by them and to claim the amounts he has filed this Complaint with costs.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          Admittedly the first Opposite Party is the Government Servant and the Complainant availed the medical service under Government Stanley hospital. There was no relationship of Consumer and Service provider between the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party’s Surgical Gastro Enterology Department got ISO Certificate in the year 2000. This is the best Department in the Government hospital in India to that effect a certificate was also given.  The Complainant was admitted on 05.04.2011 with the complaints of abdominal pain for four months, radiating pain and insignificant weight loss. It was reported that the Complainant was known alcoholic and smoker. Prior to the admission routine blood test, Urine test, Liver function test were taken. The reports found to be normal. ECG, X-ray was taken after the admission does not show any abnormality. However CT scan taken on 28.03.2011 reveals Chronic Pancreatitis with mass lesion in head of pancreas with calcification. The Complainant also admits the fact that he was suffering from aforesaid disease. On the basis of reports received a decision was taken to perform the surgery called Frey’s procedure. This is the best procedure adopted universally followed to treat the ailment suffered by the Complainant. The Complainant also not challenged the procedure adopted by the second Opposite Party. The date for surgery was fixed on 03.05.2011, prior to surgery, anesthesia opinion was sought for and who gave fitness certificate on 02.05.2011, since the Complainant is a highly risk patient.  On 03.05.2011 the surgery was performed and head cored and around 5 mg. of tissue excised. The patient was discharged on 18.05.2011 with advice to follow diabetic low fat diet. The Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party on 12.12.2011 with the discharging sinus from anterior abdominal wall three months. After the gap of seven months from the date of surgery, the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party for some other cause. The cause is not at all related to the surgery done on 03.05.2011. The Complainant informed that he has not taken any medication for diabetic for the past four months. That alone proves that the Complainant has not followed the post operative care. The Complainant himself is responsible for the same. The 1^st Opposite Party states that a simple procedure for excision of sinus tract was done on 12.12.2011 and discharged on 13.12.2011.  The VHS doctors opinion that the Opposite Parties wrongly operated is hereby denied as false and no such opinion in the form of the documents were filed. It is invented for the purpose of this case.  Hence this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd Opposite Party is a Government Servant and the Complainant availed the medical services under Government Stanley Hospital for free of cost. Hence on these grounds itself it is submitted that the Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts since there was no relationship of Consumer and service provider in this case. The averments regarding the operation was done in negligent manner are totally false and based on wrong interpretation given regarding the treatment offered at Government Stanley Hospital. A doctor cannot ensure that every patient who comes to him is cured. He has to only ensure that he confers a reasonable degree of care and competence.

a. A perusal of the detailed medical report of the 1^st Opposite Party about the case and treatment give would prove proper, and prompt medical attention had been given, as required in the circumstances of the case.

b. It was reported that the Complainant was known alcoholic and chronic smoker.

c. There was no dereliction of Medical Service or slackness in duty on the part of the Hospital at any point of time throughout the course of his treatment.

d. The hospital has shown utmost care for the patient.

e. Since there was no willful negligence or omission during the course of management, question of paying compensation does not arise.

The Complainant was admitted on 05.04.2011 with complaints of abdominal pain for four months, radiating pain and insignificant weight loss. Prior to the admission routine blood test, urine test, liver function test were taken. He was diagnosed to have Diabetes and was carefully treated.   Subsequent to the admission does not show any abnormality. However CT scan taken on 28.03.2011 reveals chronic pancreatitis with mass lesion in the head of pancreas with calcification. He was examined by the 2^nd Opposite Party and there was no breach of duty on the diagnosis arrived by the 2^nd Opposite Party. On the basis of reports Frey’s Procedure was suggested by the Opposite Parties which are one of the best procedures to treat ailment suffered by the Complainant. Medical negligence would only mean an incorrect or erroneous line of treatment. It is submitted that timely and appropriate actions to render proper treatment had been taken. On 03.05.2011 the surgery was performed and an excellent post operative care was given. The patient was discharged on 18.05.2011. Complainant was advised to follow low fat diet. Further the Complainant had not complained of pain and uneasiness when he was discharged from the hospital and thereafter. The Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party on 12.12.2011 with the discharge of sinus from anterior abdominal wall for three months. It has no connection with the treatment given by the Opposite Parties earlier as claimed by the Complainant and it is not proved that the discharge of sinus became necessary on account of negligence in the performance of the first surgery. The Complainant himself admitted that he has discontinued the treatment for diabetes for three months which clearly proves the negligence and carelessness of the Complainant. This also proves that the Complainant has not followed post operative care and thus the Opposite Parties cannot be responsible for this, the Complainant himself is responsible for the same. All diagnostic and other tests had been conducted as required and efficient medical treatment was done. The documents filed by the Complainant reveal the fact that the Complainant may be suffering from incision hernia. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that there was any negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties in performing the surgery and that it was a result of such negligence that second operation became necessary. There is no certificate of the doctor of the V.H.S. Doctors wherein it is alleged to have been stated that the operations committed by this Opposite Party was wrong or negligent on record. In the absence of any expert evidence, it cannot hold the Opposite Parties who have stated that he had performed the operation on the Complainant carefully and that the Complainant had not complained any problem when he was discharged from the hospital and thereafter. The Complaint does not specifically make out the nature of negligence. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.         

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1

          The case of the Complainant is that he was sufferings from frequent stomach pain and the same was unbearable to him and during March 2011  various tests conducted in the first Opposite Party  hospital at  surgical gastro enterology special department  for the purpose of giving treatment  and  the Opposite Parties  diagnosed that he is suffering with chronic calcific pancreatitis with inflammatory head mass with D.M. and he was advised to undergo surgery and accordingly  surgery was conducted on 03.05.2011 by the 2^nd Opposite Party at the 1^st Opposite Party hospital  and he was discharged on 18.05.2011 and issued Ex.A6 discharge summary to him with advise and after 10 days of the discharge again he was suffering with stomach pain  and for the same he took treatment as outpatient during June - November 2011 continuously  with the 1^st Opposite Party   and again on 12.12.2011  the Opposite Party completely examined the Complaint and admitted that there is a mistake in the operation done by them  and he was again operated  on 13.12.2011 in a negligent manner and that was realised by him when he went to the V.H.S Hospital for treatment, the doctors who treated him informed that such  fact of negligent and thereafter again undergone 3^rd time a surgery at V.H.S.Hospital and rectified the mistake done by the Opposite Parties and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service.

          6. Ex.A1, Ex.A2 & ExA4 are the medical reports of the Complainant issued by the Opposite Parties. Ex.A6 is the discharge summary of the Complainant. As per discharge summary the Complainant complained that he had abdominal pain for the past 4 months and he was diagnosed that chronic calcific pancreatitis with inflammatory head mars with D.M. and surgery was done following Frey’s Procedure and at the time of discharge the Complainant was oriented, normal diet and sound healthy and advised to come for review after 2 weeks.  However, the Complainant did not go for review to the Opposite Parties as advised in Ex.A6.

          7. The Complainant again admitted in the 1st Opposite Party Hospital on 12.12.2011 as he was unable to bear the stomach pain. As per Ex.A8 discharge summary the Complainant admitted on 12.12.2011 and he was diagnosed Sinus-Anterior Abdominal Wall on the same day surgery was conducted for such disease and he was discharged on 13.12.2011.

          8. The Complainant contended that due to negligent surgery conducted on 03.05.2011 and another surgery was conducted on 13.12.2011 by the Opposite Parties and second surgery was also failed and both the surgery are one and the same and  thereafter she took treatment at V.H.S Hospital and where he had undergone a surgery at third time and after that his health was restored and therefore the Opposite Parties have negligently treated the Complainant while conducting surgery and thereby committed Deficiency in Service.

          9. As per Ex.A6 discharge summary the first surgery on 03.05.2011 was conducted for pancreas. Even Ex.A10 V.H.S. Hospital report subsequently confirms that pancreas appears normal.  The 2^nd surgery was conducted for the disease Sinus- Anterior Abdominal wall as per Ex.A8 discharge summary. Both surgeries are conducted for two different diseases. At request of the Complainant his medical records were sent to the Dean, Government General Hospital, Chennai – 3 and he constituted a committee of doctors and they examined the Complainant and his medical records and gave opinion as follows.:

Both the surgeries (3.5.11 & 12.12.11) are different in nature.

              There is no deficiency while conducting the operation on 03.05.11 & 12.12.2011.

              On 03.05.11 Frey’s procedure has been done for chronic calcific pancreatic with inflammatory head mass with DM.

              On 12.12.2011 excision of the sinus tract into along with part of rectus sheath has been done for the sinus in the anterior abdominal wall.

              Both the surgeries are appropriate for that situation and are of different nature.

As per the above opinion of Expert committee of doctors of Government General Hospital, it is crystal clear that both the surgeries are different and they are necessary surgery to the Complainant and thereby the doctor who conducted the surgery has not committed any Deficiency in Service. In view of such a clear finding, the contention of the Complainant that for the same cause surgery was conducted twice has not been established by him.

                        10. The Complainant next contended that only after undergoing 3^rd surgery at V.H.S. Hospital only his health condition is restored and the doctors at V.H.S.Hospital only said that the 1^st Opposite Party doctor conducted a wrong surgery. To substantiate this contention no materials filed by the Complainant to prove that the surgeries I & II conducted at the 1^st Opposite Party hospital is defective. Ex.A10 to Ex.A16 issued by the V.H.S. Hospital documents also did not establish that the surgery conducted at the 1^st Opposite Party hospital is defective. As the Ex.C1 expert opinion clearly establishes that surgery conducted by the 2^nd Opposite Party and other doctors at the 1^st Opposite Party hospital are appropriate for that situation and are of different in nature and hence we hold that the Complainant has not proved the deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties while conducting surgery and hence, it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not committed any Deficiency in Service.      

11. POINT NO :2

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 04^th day of October 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1 dated 15.03.2011	Histopathology Report
Ex.A2 dated 18.03.2011	Surgery Package II issued by Govt.Satanley Hospital, Chennai
Ex.A3 dated 18.03.2011	Medical Fees for Rs.350/- paid by way of Challan in favour of Govt. Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai – 1 in I.O.B. Bank, Broadway Branch, Chennai – 600 108
Ex.A4 dated 28.03.2011	C.T.Scan Abdomen Plain issued by Stanley Medical Hospital, C.T.S.Centre, Chennai – 1
Ex.A5 dated 05.04.2011	Medical Fees for Rs.5,000/- paid by way of Challan in favour of Govt.Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai – 1 in I.O.B.Bank, Broadway Branch, Chennai – 600 108.
Ex.A6 dated 03.05.2011	Discharge Summary issued by the Govt. Stanley Hospital, Chennai
Ex.A7 dated 16.05.2011	Medical Fees for Rs.5,000/- paid by way of Challan in favour of Govt.Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai – 1 in I.O.B.Bank, Broadway Branch, Chennai – 600 108.
Ex.A8 dated 13.12.2011	Discharge Summary issued by the Govt. Stanley Hospital, Chennai
Ex.A9 dated 15.12.2011	Medical Fees for Rs.50/- paid by way of Challan in favour of Govt.Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai – 1 in I.O.B.Bank, Broadway Branch, Chennai – 600 108.
Ex.A10 dated 26.07.2012	Abdomen and KUB Scan Report issued by VHS, Chennai – 113
Ex.A11 dated 27.07.2012	Requisition to Specialist by the V.H.S. Chennai – 113
Ex.A12 dated 28.07.2012	Requisition to Specialist by the V.H.S. Chennai – 113
Ex.A13 dated 07.08.2012	Discharge Summary issued by V.H.S., Chennai – 113
Ex.A14 dated 11.08.2012	O.P. Sheet of V.H.S. Chennai – 113
Ex.A15 dated 26.09.2012	O.P. Sheet of V.H.S. Chennai – 113
Ex.A16 dated 03.10.2012	O.P. Sheet of V.H.S. Chennai – 113
Ex.A17 dated 21.03.2013   Ex.A18 dated 21.03.2013	Legal Notice sent to the Dean, Govt. Stanley Hospital, Chennai   Legal Notice sent to the 2nd Opposite Party herein.
Ex.A19 dated 22.03.2013	Acknowledgement received by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A20 dated 21.08.2013	Complaint –settled reply sent by G.P.O. Chennai – 1
Ex.A21 dated NIL	Bills Serious

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     ISO 9002 : 1994 Certificate

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Media Reports

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Details of the publications in International Journals

                                               Department of Surgical Gastroenterology  

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Medical Literature relates of Frey’s Procedure

 

                            

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st   OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B5 dated NIL                     Case Sheet Series

 

LIST OF COURT DOCUMENT:

Ex.C1 dated NIL                     Medical Education Department

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT