By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This Complaint is filed by Musthafa. M, Muppatta Veedu, Gudalaykunnu, Kalpetta Post, Wayanad, agasinst the M.D, Fatima Mata Mission Hospital, Kalpeta and another alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
2. The Complainant states that he is a businessman and had not been admitted in any hospital ever before and on 18.09.2018 he felt pain below the shoulder and had gone to the Fatima Mata Hospital and consulted Dr.Abubakkar Zeeshan and taken an X-ray and had done the scan. The Complainant states that he had sustained to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service from the said hospital and from the doctor and therefore he had filed this complaint arraying the hospital and the said doctor as Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
3. On going to the crux of the complaint, the Complainant states that Opposite Party No.2 has given direction to the Complainant to take admission in the hospital and accordingly the Complainant was admitted as IP1235818.
4. Subsequently the Opposite Party No.2 had examined the report of the scan and instructed the Complainant that the pain is occurring because of an ailment named appendicitis and therefore an operation is necessary to cure which is to be done on the same day for which an amount of Rs.1 Lakh was asked to deposit by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant. The Complainant then states that he do not have that much amount with him and therefore he cannot deposit the amount and Opposite Party No.2 told him to take medicine for four days and if not cured operation can be done. The Complainant was given pain killer and injection during those days and subsequently the nurse who is a staff of the Opposite Party No.1 came to the Complainant for injecting the Complainant and on enquiry with her regarding the necessary of the injection, it was told by the nurse that the same is for reducing the pain and then the Complainant told that there is no pain and then the nurse had gone without taking the injection. Sometimes later Opposite Party No.2 came and the Complainant had requested Opposite Party No.2 to discharge him but the doctor did not agree with him and told him to do the operation on that day itself. Complainant then told the doctor that the expenses shall have to be met by the Opposite Party for the operation and then Opposite Party No.2 understood that there is no scope for getting money from the Complainant and therefore discharged him on 22.09.2018. Opposite Party No.2 had also given a letter to the Government Hospital stating that the Complainant is suffering from appendicitis. The Complainant thereafter gone to the MESKMHM Hospital on 24.09.2018 and as per the direction of the doctor of that institution had taken the scan on 25.09.2018 from Karuna Diagnosis and Research Center and the doctor after verification of the scan report informed the Complainant that the lever of the Complainant has inflammation and pus formation and had given tablets for 21 days. The said physician of the hospital had not advised operation to the Complainant. The Complainant further states that he had paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 hospital. He had undergone severe mental pain and physical distress due to the action of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The above action of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 amounts to deficiency of service and therefore the instant complaint is filed seeking a compensation of Rs.9,70,000/- by the Complainant.
5. Upon notice Opposite Party No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their version. In the version of Opposite Parties, they denied almost every allegations raised by the Complainant and stated that the complaint is filed only to harass the Opposite Parties and for undue financial gain without any bonafides. The Complainant came to the causality of the Opposite Party No.1 hospital on 18.09.2018 with abdominal pain. The medial officer attended the patient on examination had seen tenderness and guarding on the right iliac fossa region and admitted under the Opposite Party No.2 on a provisional diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The patient was started medicines, IV fluid etc as per protocol. The ultrasound scan of abdomen done on 18.09.2018 was suggestive of possibility of appendicitis. The patient was started with medicines. The Opposite Party No.2 examined the patient and continued conservative management. In view of ultrasound scan report suggestive of appendicitis along with symptoms of pain, the Opposite Party No.2 discussed with the Complainant and his relatives about the possible need of appendectomy. Further the details of treatment consultation, symptoms and advices given by the Opposite Parties are described in the version. On 22.09.2018, the Complainant had disclosed his financial condition and his preference for going over to the Government Hospital for further treatment. The Opposite Parties in their version states that the Complainant was discharged on 22.09.2018. At this stage the Opposite Party states that the Opposite Party No.2 is only a physician and had never advised any surgery on the patient at any time by the Opposite Party No.2 and denied all the allegations of the Complainant. The Complainant was advised conservative line of management in connection with the surgeon and he was symptomatically better with medication and supportive care and he was never advised emergency surgery. In the version, the Opposite Party states that they had exercised due skill, expertise and care in the treatment of the Complainant and there is no deficiency of service or negligence from the part of the Opposite Parties are not liable to compensate any loss to the Complainant.
6. The evidence of Complainant consists of Exts.A1 to A9 and oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the evidence of Opposite Parties consists of the oral evidence of OPW1.
7. From all the above, the Commission has to examine as to whether
- There is any deficiency of service is occurred from the side of Opposite Parties towards the Complainant and
- The Complainant is eligible to get any compensation and costs from the Opposite Parties.
8. We have perused the complainant, verified the version and the documents produced from either side. The Commission also relied on the deposition of Opposite Party No.2 and PW2 to come in to an inference about the gist of the complaint. The observation of the Commission is that the Complainant had gone to Opposite Party No.1 where the Opposite Party No.2 examined the Complainant. It cannot be ascertained merely on the basis of the argument of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.2 had advised an operation for appendicitis on the same day for the Complainant. Here the fact that the Opposite Party No.2 is a physician is very significant. The requirement of operation and its necessity shall normally be decided by a surgeon only and not by a physician. Here lies the importance of the evidence of PW2 given in the box in which it is deposed that the patient had not disclosed to him anything regarding the advice of Opposite Party No.2 for an urgent operation. Normally a patient who is consulting a second doctor after a dissatisfied consultation with the first doctor shall disclose the diagnosis and its results but in this case which is not seen done by the Complainant. Moreover the Complainant and Opposite Parties are of the same opinion that the discharge was asked for, by the Complainant, due to his financial constrainments and for consultation of a government doctor. Even though things are being so the Complainant himself says that he had not gone to the Government Hospital and consulted another doctor. The Complainant is duty bound to prove deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties either with an expert opinion or on the basis of substantiating records the necessary of which has been enlightened by the apex court in different occasions. Complainant himself agrees that Opposite Party No.2 had advised the Complainant to take scan and X-ray which reveals that the Opposite Party No.2 had relied on to the report of the scan and X-ray in his diagnosis. The allegation of the Complainant that he had sustained to deficiency of service from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 had not been established on the basis of any records and therefore the Complainant had pathetically failed to establish his case on merit. Hence Point No.1 is found against the Complainant and this Commission had not established Point No.1.
Accordingly complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 5th day of September 2023.
Date of Filing:-01.11.2018.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Mustafa. M. Shop.
PW2. Dr. K. M. John. Physician.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Dr. Abubakar Zeezhan. Physician.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Admission Card.
A2. USG Abdomen. Dt:18.09.2018.
A3(a). New Registration Bill. Dt:18.09.2018.
A3(b). Service Bill. Dt:18.09.2018.
A3(c ). Service Bill. Dt:18.09.2018.
A3(d). Cash Bill. Dt:21.09.2018.
A3(e). Cash Bill. Dt:19.09.2018.
A3(f). Cash Bill. Dt:20.09.2018.
A3(g). Cash Bill. Dt:18.09.2018.
A3(h). Cash Bill. Dt:19.09.2018.
A3(i). Cash Bill. Dt:21.09.2018.
A3(j). Cash Bill. Dt:22.09.2018.
A3(k). Cash Bill. Dt:18.09.2018.
A3(l). Final Bill. Dt:22.09.2018.
A3(m). Final Bill. Dt:22.09.2018.
A4. Prescription. Dt:22.09.2018.
A5. Copy of AMYLASE Test Report. Dt:25.09.2018.
A6. Sonography of Whole Abdomen Report. Dt:25.09.2018.
A7. OP Card issued from MES Hospital. Dt:2409.2018.
A8. Prescription. Dt:25.09.2018.
A9. Letter issued by Dr. K. M. John. Dt:04.10.2018.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/
