By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for the medical negligence and deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant on 10.09.2010 went to Assumption Hospital, Sulthan Bathery with a cut injury over left hand. There was no Surgeon there and the complainant was gone to Vinayaka Hopsital, Sulthan Bathery. From Vinayaka Hospital, Dr. K. L. Raju attended the patient and talked with them and informed them that there will be 'tharippu' ie numbness in the hand for 3 months and thereafter the complainant can do works as done earlier. By believing the words of the Doctor, the complainant undergone treatment. But after the elapse of 11/2 years, the numbness of the hand not gone but increased. The complainant cannot do any work thereafter. The complainant consulted with many doctors at Medical College Hospital, Baby Memorial Hospital, Banglore Super specialty Hospital etc... The Doctors suggested the complainant to undergo micro vascular surgery to cure the problem. The numbness of the hand increased only due to the mistake committed by the doctor in operation. The complainant had to suffer so many hardships and financial loss due to this. So the complainant alleges deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties, aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 stated that the complainant was examined, advised and necessary surgical procedure were done on him by the orthopedic surgeon Dr. K. L. Raju, who was working in opposite parties hospital. Opposite party No.1 pleaded non-joinder of necessary parties and so the complainant impleaded the Doctor who treated the complainant. The 1st opposite party denied all the allegation of complainant. The Orthopedic Surgeon also conducted the operation had taken maximum care in treating the complainant. The Doctor explained the patient and bystanders of the nature and prognosis of the wound. The complainant was informed of the possible complications in the form of numbness of the hand and fingers, burning and tingling sensation of the hand and stiffness of the fingers in the language known to the complainant. But the doctor never informed the complainant that the numbness of the hand will be cured within 3 months. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.
4. In the version of opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 contented that the 2nd opposite party conducted the wound inspection under local anesthesia. Tendons of Palmaris longs, flexor digitorum superficial and flexor digitorum profound and median nerve was found cut and retracted. Sensory loss was present on touching tip of index, middle and ring fingers. The complainant was explained the gravity of the injury and complications. The complainant voluntarily agreed for surgery and gave written informed consent. Complications inherent in median nerve injury which is beyond the control of the Surgeon. There is no mistake in operation and deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.2.
5. On perusal of complaint, versions and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
6. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A5 and Ext.C1 and Ext.X1 are marked. The opposite party No.2 also filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1. Opposite party's witness is examined as OPW2. In the cross-examination of complainant (PW1), PW1 deposed that "the injury sustained at 10.00 AM and first of all went to Assumption Hospital, Sulthan Bathery from where the injury was dressed by them. Thereafter, after 11.00 AM the complainant went to Vinayaka Hospital, Sulthan Bathery, since the injury was more severe". The complainant do not know the exact time he went to the Vinayaka Hospital ie opposite parties hospital when a question is put to him that he went to the opposite parties hospital at 1.15. P.M. The PW1 admitted that the doctor had explained the complications to him. The Ext.C1 document is the Medical Report issued by Medical Board, Calicut. In the report it is stated that "this is a known complication of a peripheral nerve repair". Such a complication is explained to the complainant before surgery and the complainant admitted it. In Ext.C1, there is no averment that there is medical negligence from the side of treating doctor. The Ext.X1 document is the treatment records called for from the opposite party hospital. In the back side of 1st page it is stated that "patient not able to flex index, middle at ring finger at present and complaint of loss of sensation of the index, middle and ring finger (L)". This statement is recorded by the opposite party No.2 doctor before surgery and at the time of the 1st inspection of the wound. The complainant admitted that there is informed consent regarding the complication before surgery. In Ext.X1 page (2), in the portion of advice the doctor recorded that "patient informed about the nature and prognosis of the wound etc...". The opposite party No.2 is an Orthopedic Surgeon. The OPW1 deposed before the Forum that "in order to conduct neuro surgery, the assistance of Neuro Surgeon and advanced technology operation theater is required". The OPW1 stated that being an Orthopedic Surgeon, he is competent to conduct surgery over tendon and peripheral injury. In re-examination of OPW1, the OPW1 deposed that Neuro Surgeon does only surgery to brain and spine and the help of a neuro surgeon is not required for treating tendon and peripheral surgery. More over, he deposed that normally orthopedic surgeon alone is doing peripheral surgery and tendon. The OPW1 deposed that a neurologist is a physician and not surgeon. On perusal of entire evidences and documents, it is found that there is no evidence or documents produced by the complainant to prove the negligence of opposite party No.2. Mere allegation in the complaint that the numbness in the hand happened due to the mistake in operation by opposite party No.2 is not sufficient. The complainant have to prove the mistake of operation and deficiency of service of the opposite party No.2 in conducting surgery beyond doubt by producing convincing and cogent evidences. But in this case, the complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties in conducting surgery. The post-operative complications are the known complications which are explained to the complainant prior to the surgery. The cut injury sustained to the complainant in such a gravity and the subsequent complications in certain cases are beyond the control of a doctor. On perusal of records, it is seen that the doctor had taken utmost care and cautions in conducting surgery. So the Forum found that there is no negligence from the part of opposite parties and thereby no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of May 2015.
Date of Filing:27.03.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sudhakaran. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Dr. Linga Raju. Doctor, Orthopedic Surgeon, Government
Hospital Mysore.
OPW2. Dr. Balaji Scaria. Associate Professor, Department of Orthopedic
MCH, Calicut.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1(Series). Hospital Bills (11 Nos).
A2(Series). Prescriptions (5 Nos).
A3(Series). Prescriptions (4 Nos).
A4. Certificate.
A5. Nerve conduction study report.
X1. Case sheet of Complainant.
C1. Medical Board Examination Report. dt:26.06.2013.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
