DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  15^th day of  September, 2023 

Present      :    Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                   :    Smt. Vidya A., Member                                                          Date of Filing:  10/08/2021   

                                                                                  CC/126/2021

Rajakumari P.I.,

W/o. Govindan Namboodiri,

Chadramana,

Naduvathra (PO),

Peringottukurissi,

Palakkad – 678 574                                                -                     Complainant     

      (By Adv. R.Anand)

                                                                                                Vs

1. The Manager,

Thankam Hospital,

West Yakkara,

Palakkad – 678 004

2. Dr.P.N. Vasudevan,

Thankam Hospital,

West Yakkara,

Palakkad – 678 004                                         -                       Opposite parties 

      (O.P.1 by Adv. Ms.Preetha John K.

       O.P.2 by Adv.V.K. Venugopalan)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President  

1. Complainant grieves about a hip replacement surgery that was carried out on her by the 2^nd OP in  the 1^st OP hospital.  Subsequent to the surgery the complainant developed excruciating pain and other complications that made walking and even day to day activities insufferable. She therefore had to carry out physiotherapy, homeo medication which ultimately resulted in a second surgery after prolonged treatment elsewhere. This corrective procedure had to be carried out due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and grieving thus, the complainant seeks for compensation and costs.
2. OPs filed separate versions which in essence plead the same facts that post surgery the complainant had failed to carry out visits so as to ascertain the condition of replacement. The pain is a known complication which can be rectified, had the complainant approached the opposite parties. The complainant ought not have approached other treatment methods.
3. The following issues were framed:

1. Whether the placement of a cup and bone  cementing are part and parcel of the surgery carried out by OP2 ?
2.  If yes, whether the OP2 had performed the said procedure ?
3. Whether the 2^nd OP had followed standard treatment procedure and reasonable degree of care and caution while treating and performing the surgery of the complainant ?
4.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed?
6. Any other reliefs ?

4.         (i)         Complainant filed proof affidavit alongwith documents. But the complainant had             failed to serve OPs of the said documents in accordance with procedural     regulations even after repeated directions. Hence evidence of complainant was        closed.  There after the complainant filed an application as IA 282/2023 to             reopen evidence. It was allowed, but the counsel for complainant wanted to        verify thereon documents and sought time on one pretext or another. Hence        their evidence were closed without marking of documents.     

            (ii)        O.P.s filed proof affidavit and marked   Exts. B1 & B2.     

Issue Nos. 1,2 & 3  

5.         The indubitable case of the complainant was that the hip replacement surgery  carried out upon the complainant was faulty and in view of this deficiency in service she had to undergo acute pain and suffering.  He condition could be cured only after going further surgery in another hospital. The opposite parties had stoutly contented these pleadings of the complainant. 

6.         In order to substantiate their contention, the opposite parties marked Ext.B1 &2. Complainant has not produced any documents. In the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the treatment carried out in opposite party No.1 hospital is not in dispute, non production of documents by the complainant is not fatal to the case of the complainant, considering the OPs has submitted the entire medical records. But burden of proof was cast upon the complainant to prove that the suffering that she underwent was due to deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd OP by adducing cogent medical evidence. The complainant has failed to do so.             

7.         Therefore we are left with no alternate but to hold that the complainant has failed to prove issues 1,2 & 3 in their favour.  

 Issue Nos. 4, 5 & 6   

8.         Apropos the findings in Issues 1 to 3, we hold that  the complainant has failed to prove   deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

9.         Resultantly,  the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. 

10.       In the facts and circumstances of the case,  parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

11.       Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed.

                              Pronounced in open court on this the  15^th  day of September,  2023.       

                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                                President                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                             Smt. Vidya A.

                                                                 Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant : Nil

 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 –  Original treatment records

Ext.B2 –   Communication dated 26/12/2020 issued by complainant to OP.           

 Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.