IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2012.

                                 Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)

C.C. No. 99/2008 (Filed on 11.07.2008)

Between:

1.  Shyba Anna Koshy,

     D/o P.G. Kunjukoshy,

     Pulimalil House, Oonnukal Muri,

     Chenneerkara Village,

     Kozhencherry Taluk,

     Pathanamthitta.

2.   P.G. Kunjukoshy,

S/o Late George Kunjukoshy,

     Pulimalil House, of  do.  do.  do.

3.  Sherly Koshy,

     W/o P.G. Kunjukoshy,

     of  do.  do.  do.                                                    …  Complainants.

(By Adv. George Abraham Pachayil)

And:

1.  The Managing Director,

     MGM Muthoot Medical Centre,

     Ring Road, Pathanamthitta.

2.  Dr. Biju. V.K., Medical Officer,

     MGM Muthoot Medical Centre,

     Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv. P.K. Mathew)

3.  Dr. Vipin, Medical Officer,

     MGM Muthoot Medical Centre,

     Pathanamthitta.

Addl.4. The United India Insurance-

     Company Ltd., Pathanamthitta-

     Branch represented by the

     Branch Manager.

(By Adv. P.D. Varghese)

Addl.5. M/s MGM Muthoot Medical Centre-

     Private Ltd., Pathanamthitta

     represented by its Managing Director. … Opposite parties

(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla for opposite-

Parties 1 and addl.5.)

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                Complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                2. The 1^st complainant is the daughter of 2^nd and 3^rd complainant.  The complainants originally filed this complaint against 3 opposite parties.  Later, 2 more opposite parties are impleaded as additional opposite parties 4 and 5 and the name of the 3^rd opposite party in the original complaint is also changed as Dr. Vipin instead of Dr. Vijayan.  The 1^st opposite party is a hospital and the addl. 5^th opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party hospital and opposite parties 2 and 3 are the doctors working in the 1^st opposite party hospital and the addl. 4^th opposite party is the insurance company.  The original complaint was also amended 4 times by the complainants. 

                3. As per the amended complaint, the complainants’ case is that the 1^st complainant along with 2^nd and 3^rd complainants approached the 1^st opposite party hospital seeking treatment of the first complainant for her longstanding headache and general weakness and it was diagnosed that the 1^st complainant has Deviation of Nasal Septum to left side and Right Maxillary and Bilateral Ethimoid Sinusitis.  2^nd opposite party the ENT specialist of the 1^st opposite party hospital advised surgery as the 1^st complainant has very acute stage of pansiusitis.  The 2^nd opposite

party also told the complainants that the ailments of the 1^st complainant can be cured easily by a minor operation at an expense of ` 12,000 at the maximum.  2^nd opposite party also told the complainants that he is an expert in the field.  Believing the words of the 2^nd opposite party, complainants agreed and the surgery was conducted by the 2^nd opposite party on 11.10.2007 and discharged on 19.10.2007 with an advise for review check-up on 27.10.2007.  But on 23.10.2007 the complainants noticed bleeding through the nose of the 1^st complainant and she was immediately taken to the 1^st opposite party hospital and on finding Post Fess bleeding from the nose of the 1^st complainant she was admitted there and she had undergone treatment till 31.10.2007 for the bleeding.

                 4. At the time of discharge on 31.10.2007, the 1^st complainant was advised for further check up on 03.11.2007.  Accordingly, the complainant was examined by the second opposite party on 03.11.2007 and informed the complainants that the first complainant is totally recovered.  But on the same day evening itself, the complainants noticed bleeding from the nose of the 1^st complainant and she was immediately taken to the 1^st opposite party hospital.  At that time the 3^rd opposite party and the staff of the hospital attended the complainant without any care and caution.  Despite of the serious condition of the 1^st complainant, complainants were asked to wait saying that the 2^nd opposite party will come and attended the 1^st complainant.  As the time was running without any proper attendance by the hospital authorities, the complainants contacted the 2^nd opposite party through phone and the 2^nd opposite party told that he is out of station and 3^rd opposite party who is on duty will attend the 1^st complainant and that he will do the necessary.  Even then 1^st complainant was kept there without any medical assistance and the 3^rd opposite party and the staff of the hospital evaded the questions of the complainants without any answers.  As the physical condition of the 1^st complainant was deteriorating drastically and the 3^rd opposite party was wasting time without any positive action, the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants lost their patience and asked the 3^rd opposite party to do the necessary to take the 1^st complainant immediately to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla, if they cannot do anything to save the 1^st complainant.  Then the 3^rd opposite party replied that there is no necessity to take the 1^st complainant to any other hospital and the situation can be effectively managed by them.  He also told that they have no ambulance facility for taking the patient to another hospital.  As the condition of the 1^st complainant was getting dangerously worse and the opposite parties were continuing their negligent attitude, the complainants called another ambulance and insisted to discharge the 1^st complainant for taking her to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital.  When the complainants were about to take the patient to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, the 3^rd opposite party asked to take the patient to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry as the physical condition of the patient was in danger and he also given a reference letter to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry. On the way to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla, the complainants decided to take the patient to Muthoot Hospital Kozhencherry as the patient’s condition was found very serious.  They reached at about midnight on 04.11.2007 at Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry a lot of blood was lost and the patient also lost her consciousness. At Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry, Dr. Mathew Tharian, the consultant ENT surgeon attended the patient and after examining the patient he scolded the complainants for the delay in bringing the patient.  Only then the complainants realized the magnitude of the delay caused by the 3^rd opposite party.  The patient was admitted in the ICU and 4 pints of blood was given to the patient and she was taken to the operation theatre in the night itself.  By the treatment at Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry, the patient had recovered from the ailments caused to her by the negligence of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The patient was under the treatment at Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry for 13 days from 04.11.07 to 17.11.2007 and for the treatments at Kozhencherry the complainants were charged with an amount of ` 20,464.

                5. All these suffering of the complainants were due to the negligence of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Therefore, the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants asked 2^nd opposite party to compensate the complainants.  But they refused to do so and tried to settle the claim by giving a cheque for ` 15,000 which was refused by the complainants as the opposite parties had not done the minimum reasonable apology and the amount offered is not reasonable. Therefore advocate notice was issued against the opposite parties for a just and reasonable settlement of the issues.  But the opposite parties declined the demand by stating false and untenable grounds.  Subsequent medical consultation revealed that the surgery to the 1<sup>st</sup> complainant was unnecessary. In spite of this surgery was conducted only for getting money from the complainants.  All the above said acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainants and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for the realization of a total amount of ` 10 lakhs under various heads.

                6. Opposite parties 1, 2 and additional opposite parties 4 and 5 entered appearance.  Third opposite party is exparte.

                7. First opposite party filed a separate version and an additional version after the amendment of the complaint.  Second opposite party and additional 4^th opposite party filed separate versions.  Additional 5^th opposite party adopted the version of the first opposite party.  The contentions raised by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and additional 5^th opposite party in their versions are one and the same. 

                8. The main contentions in the version of opposite parties 1 and 2 and additional 5^th opposite party are as follows:  These opposite parties admitted the treatment of the complainant at the first opposite party hospital from 11.10.2007 to 18.10.2007 and 23.10.2007 to 30.10.2007.  According to the opposite parties, the patient came to the first opposite party hospital on 11.10.2007 and consulted Dr. Sanjeev. V.K. of the Neurology Department for complaints of headache and throat pain.  On examination, the Neurologist was of the opinion that the headache was not due to neurological cause and thus referred the case to the second opposite party to rule out any ENT cause.  On examination by the second opposite party, a diagnosis of Deviated Nasal Septum with Sinusitis with Pharyngitis was made.  To confirm the diagnosis, a CT scan was advised and it was taken on 12.10.2007 which revealed deviation of nasal septum (DNS) to the left, bilateral choncha bullosa, bilateral ethmoidal sinusitis and right maxillary sinusitis.  Though the ideal treatment of the condition is surgery medication was continued for 2 more days to control the acute stage.  On the basis of the clinical examination and CT scan findings, the surgical treatment in the form of Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS) along with Septoplasty was suggested to the patient.  The details regarding the procedure and the probable complications were explained to the patient and to her father who agreed for the surgery.  After explaining the pros and cons of the procedure and the inherent risk involved the surgery known as FESS and after obtaining the informed consent and after conducting all pre anaesthestic check-up, the surgery was done under local anasesthesia on 16.10.2007.

               9. After the surgery, the patient was shifted to the post operative ward with nasal pack.  The immediate post operative period was uneventful.  Nasal pack was removed on the next day.  No bleeding was noticed.  Patient was shifted to the room and medication continued.  As the patient’s general condition improved and there was no bleeding from nose, patient was discharged on 19.10.2007, after cleaning both nasal cavities with an advice to avoid dust and cold, to take soft diet and continue medications.  The patient was also advised to report for review after one week.  However, the patient reported to the casualty on 23.10.2007 for bleeding from the nose.  Usually, in cases of nasal surgery, bleeding is seen immediately after the nasal pack is removed or on subsequent days.  Since the bleeding had occurred a week after surgery, sphenopalatine artery bleed or infection was suspected.  Patient was admitted immediately and nasal packing done and medications in the form of I.V. Antibiotic and antihistamine was started.  On 26.10.2007, patient was taken up for pack removal and conducted diagnostic nasal endoscopy (DNE) to find out the exact bleeding point and to cauterize the bleeding point, if any.  But it is found that sphenopalatine artery was intact and no specific bleeding point.  The patient was observed for 4 more days under routine medications and since the general condition was improved, patient was discharged on 30.10.2007 with advice to take oral antibiotic, hematinics etc.  Patient was reviewed again on the morning of 03.11.2007 in the ENT outpatient department and the crusts found were removed and the patient was advised to continue medications and review after one week.

              10. However in the night of 03.11.2007, the patient reported to the casualty with bleeding.  The duty medical officer after examining the patient informed the second opposite party who was out of station at Kollam over telephone regarding the patient.  Since the second opposite party was due to be returned only on 05.11.2007, he advised the duty medical officer to send the patient immediately to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry after adequate first aid measures.  The second opposite party also contacted immediately the ENT surgeon of Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry Dr. Mathew Tharian over telephone and explained to him about the situation and also requested him to be present at the hospital when the patient arrives.  The second opposite party also talked to complainant’s father over the phone and informed him that since he was out of station it is better to take the patient to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry and also told him about the arrangements he had made in connection with the shifting and further treatments of the patient.  All other allegations of the complainants are false and hence denied.  The second opposite party never told the complainant that the surgery is a minor one.  The first complainant was brought to first opposite party hospital on 03.11.2007 at around 10 p.m. and not at 9 p.m. as alleged by the complainants.  The allegation that the third opposite party and the staff of the first opposite party had not given care and caution to the patient on 03.11.2007 is false.  The third opposite party immediately given first aid and consulted the second opposite party for further treatment and the second opposite party had given necessary directions to the third opposite party.

                11. The allegations in the complaint that the third opposite party told the complainant that the second opposite party will come and attended the patient and the third opposite party did not provide any medical assistance to the patient for more than 1 ½  hours etc. are false and hence denied.  The complainants never asked for discharge of the patient for taking her to Pushpagiri Medical College, Thiruvalla.  The second opposite party had advised the third opposite party to refer the patient to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry because the patient requires the management of an ENT surgeon and he also contacted the ENT surgeon of Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry.  The third opposite party also given reference letter to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry.  The allegations regarding the condition of the patient at the time of her admission at Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry and the allegation regarding the comments of Dr. Mathew Tharian are not aware of the second opposite party and hence not admitted.  The allegations regarding the negotiations for settling the dispute between the parties are also false.  The allegation that the patient was compelled to obtain treatment from Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry is due to the negligent treatment of the opposite parties are false. The surgery was performed on the basis of the diagnosis and the surgery was highly essential in the circumstances of the complainant’s ailments.  What all treatments given to the patient was warranted in the circumstances of the ailments of the patient and the answering opposite parties had not committed any negligence or deficiency in service in the treatment.  The nasal bleeding after the nasal surgery is a known complication and is not due to any negligence of the treated doctors.  The first opposite party hospital is a well equipped hospital and the doctors attended the patients are also qualified and experienced doctors.  Moreover, the first opposite party hospital is insured with the additional 4^th opposite party at the relevant period for the claims, if any, made by the patients in connection with their treatment.  With the above contentions, opposite parties 1, 2 and additional 5^th opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                12. The contention in the version of additional 4th opposite party is as follows:  The additional 4^th opposite party admitted the issuance of the policy by them in favour of the first opposite party.  The other contention raised by the additional 4^th opposite party in their version is also the same contentions of the other opposite parties.  So we are not re-producing the same again.  That apart, additional 4^th opposite party raised a contention that the first opposite party has not given any notice to the insurer about the claim made by the patient so far which is a violation of the policy conditions.  Since the first opposite party did not complied the conditions in the policy, additional 4^th opposite party is not liable to indemnify the first opposite party.  With the above contentions, the additional 4^th opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint against them with cost.

                13. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                14. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PWs.1 to 4 and DW1 and Exts. A1 to A15 and B1 and B2.  After closure of evidence, the complainants and first opposite party and additional 5^th opposite party filed argument notes and the parties were heard.

                15. The Point:  The allegations of the complainants against the opposite parties are as follows:  The first complainant along with her parents approached the first opposite party hospital with complaints of long standing headache and general weakness.  The second opposite party diagnosed the ailments of the first complainant as deviation of nasal septum to left side and right maxillary and bilateral ethimoid sinusitis and advised nasal surgery as the patient’s ailments are in an acute stage.  Thereafter, the second opposite party performed the surgery on 11.10.2007 to the patient after complying all pre-surgical formalities.  The patient was discharged on 19.10.2007 as the general condition of the patient was improved.  At the time of discharge, required medicines were given and advised the patient to come for review on 27.10.2007.  But on 23.10.2007, bleeding noticed from the nose of the patient and she was taken to the hospital and got admitted and undergone treatment till 31.10.2007 and at the time of discharge, the patient was advised for further check-up on 03.11.2007.  Accordingly, the patient came to the hospital on 03.11.2007 and the patient was examined by the second opposite party and told that the patient had totally recovered from the ailments.  But on the same day at about 9 p.m., bleeding again occurred and the patient was taken to the hospital.  At that time, the third opposite party attended the patient.  Thereafter referred the patient to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry for further treatment and she had undergone treatment there till 17.11.2007.  During the treatment of the patient at Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry, the patient got complete recovery from her ailments.

                16. According to the complainants, the surgery conducted by the second opposite party was an unnecessary surgery and he performed the surgery in a negligent manner which resulted in the bleeding and the third opposite party retained the patient for 1½ hours on 03.11.2007 without giving proper medical assistance which put the patient into a critical stage.  All the above said acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and they have committed gross negligence in the treatment of the patient and the opposite parties are liable for the same to the complainants.        

                17. In order to prove the case of the complainant, 1^st and 2^nd complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of their chief examination along with 13 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and 2^nd complainant was examined as PW2 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A13.  Two other documents were also marked as Ext.A14 and Ext.A15 through DW1 for the complainants.  That apart, 2 doctors were also examined as PW3 and PW4 for the complainants.  Ext.A1 is the diagnosis report dated 12.10.2007 issued from Muthoot Scan and Research Centre in the name of the 1^st complainant.  Ext.A2 is the discharge summary dated 19.10.2007 issued from 1^st opposite party hospital in connection with the treatment of the complainant from 11.10.2007 to 19.10.2007.  Ext.A3 is the discharge summary dated 31.10.2007 issued from 1^st opposite party hospital in connection with the treatment of the 1^st complainant from 23.10.2007 to 31.10.2007.  Ext.A4 series, A5 series and A6 series are the medical bills issued from 1^st opposite party hospital in connection with the treatment of the 1^st complainant.  Ext.A7 is the discharge summary dated 17.11.2007 issued from Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry in respect of the treatment of the 1^st complainant from 04.11.2007 to 17.11.2007.  Ext.A8 series are the medical bills issued from Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry in respect of the treatment of the 1^st complainant.  Ext.A9 is the office copy of the advocate notice dated 29.04.2008 issued for the complainant to the additional 5^th opposite party.  Exts.A10 and A11 are the postal receipt and the acknowledgment card respectively of Ext.A9.  Ext.A12 is the paper publication against the third opposite party.  Ext.A13 is the C.T. Scan film in respect of the scanning of the 1^st complainant at Muthoot Scans.  Ext.A14 is the O.P. treatment records of 1^st opposite party hospital in respect of the O.P. treatment of the 1^st complainant.  Ext.A15 is the I.P treatment records of the 1^st opposite party hospital in respect of the treatment of the 1^st complainant.

                18. On the other hand, the contentions of opposite parties 1, 2 and additional 5^th opposite party is that in the treatment of the 1^st complainant they have not committed any negligence of deficiency in service.  According to opposite parties, when the 1^st complainant came to the hospital, various tests and examinations were conducted and on the basis of the test results and other examinations, a surgery was highly required for the 1^st complainant’s ailments.  Accordingly, after complying all pre-surgical formalities surgery was conducted and she was discharged, as the surgery was successful and the general condition of the 1^st complainant was improved.  Subsequently, the 1^st complainant was brought to the hospital for bleeding from the nose, which was also rectified with due care and cautions as are warranted in the circumstances of the 1^st complainant’s ailment.  Thereafter in the night of 03.11.2007, the complainant was brought to the hospital for bleeding from the nose, the 3^rd opposite party, the then duty doctor of the 1^st opposite party attended the patient and intimated the condition of the patient to the 2^nd opposite party who was out of station and as per the directions of the 2^nd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party referred the patient to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry for further treatment after giving proper first aid.  3^rd opposite party has not made any delay for sending the patient to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry.  The said shifting of the patient was made as the patient requires the attendance to an ENT specialist and in the circumstances of the non-availability of the 2^nd opposite party.  In the diagnosis and in the surgery and in the further treatments till the shifting of the 1^st complainant to the Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry, opposite parties had not committed any laches or negligence.  What all treatments they have given are perfect and required for the complainant.  The complainant has not suffered anything from the hands of the opposite parties as claimed by the complainant.

                19. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, one doctor was examined as DW1 and 2 documents were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.  Ext.B1 is the I.P treatment records of Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry in respect of the 1^st complainant’s treatment and Ext.B2 is the O.P. treatment records of Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry in respect of the treatment of the 1^st complainant. 

                20. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on records and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the treatment of the complainant.  The allegations of the complainant is that an unwarranted surgery was done to the 1^st complainant by the 2^nd opposite party and because of the said unwarranted surgery and due to the negligence of opposite parties, complication of bleeding through the nose occurred to the 1^st complainant and the 1^st complainant was not properly attended by the 3^rd opposite party on 03.11.2007, which resulted in the occurrence of further complications to the complainant which lead to further treatment at Kozhencherry hospital.  But all the allegations are denied by the opposite parties in toto.

                21. In view of the allegations, the questions to be decided is whether a surgery was required to the complainant and whether the complication of bleeding was occurred due to the negligence of the opposite parties and whether the 3^rd opposite party has not given proper attendance to the complainant on 03.11.2007.

                22. With regard to the 1^st allegation, unwarranted surgery, we have perused the treatment records of the complainant and the deposition of PW3 and 4, the expert doctors brought by the complainants.  As per treatment records and the scanning reports, the complainants’ ailments are Deviation of Nasal Septum (left) Chonchabullosa, Bilateral Ethimoidal Sinusitis and right Occulary Sinusitis. As per the deposition of PWs.3 and 4 expert doctors, the said ailments required surgery.  Further, as per the treatment records the said surgery was conducted on 16.10.2007 that is after 5 days from the admission of the patient and 4 days from the diagnosis.  This much days are sufficient for opting a 2^nd consultation elsewhere which was not done by the complainants.  Moreover, it is also revealed from the treatment records and the deposition of PW1, the complainants agreed for the said surgery with their full consent.  It is also pertinent to note that the doctor concerned is the competent person to decide the treatment required for a patient on the basis of the diagnosis.  In view of the said principle the patient is not entitled to ask the doctor to give such and such treatments.  Here the patient had only one option which is for going for a 2^nd consultation.  In this case, the doctor suggested the treatments the patient accepted the said suggestion without opting for a 2^nd consultation though there was enough time and sufficient opportunity as the complainant had no casualty and her admission was not an emergency admission.  Therefore, we find no merit in the allegation that the surgery was unwarranted.

                23. The 2^nd allegation that the bleeding was occurred due to the negligence in the surgery is not supported with any cogent evidence.  At the time of discharge, there was no such complication.  The said complications occurred not during the stay of the patient at the hospital.  But it was during the stay of the patient at her house.  As per the treatment records, opposite parties explored about the probable causes which leads to the bleeding.  But the result of the said explorations is negative.  It is evident from Ext.A15 and B1 treatment records, as no specific finding for the cause of bleeding seen recorded therein.  It is evident from the materials on record that the bleeding occurred on all occasions at the house of the complainants.  This shows that the bleeding was due to some other reasons and may be due to any acts of the patient against medical advice given at the time of discharge.  Moreover, complainant has not adduced any material evidence to fasten any liability to the opposite parties for the bleeding.  It is also pertinent to note that the doctors of the 1^st opposite party hospital and the doctors of the Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry had not given any special or any intensive treatment to the complainant for the bleeding.  In both hospitals, doctors had given same treatments for the bleeding.  So the bleeding of the complainant can be treated only as a known complication of nasal surgery as contended by the opposite parties. Our observation in this regard is also on the basis of the absence of cogent evidence from the side of the complainant against the opposite parties contention.  Therefore, we are not inclined to find any deficiency in service against the opposite parties in this regard. 

                24. The other allegation that the 3^rd opposite party had not given proper attendance to the patient on 03.11.2007 and he purposely kept the patient at the hospital for hours.  But on a perusal of Ext. A14 outpatient treatment records, it is seen that the patient was brought to the casualty of the 1^st opposite party hospital at 10.30 p.m on 03.11.2007. At the same time, as per Ext. B2 outpatient treatment records, the patient was admitted at Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry at 11.25 p.m on 03.11.2007. The complainants’ allegation is that the patient was kept at 1^st opposite party hospital without any proper medical attendance for many hours.  But this allegation is not supported with any evidence.  The duration between the time of bringing the patient at 1^st opposite party hospital and her admission at Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry is only 45 minutes.  The copy of the reference letter seen in Ext.A14 and the time gap mentioned above etc. reveals that the 3^rd opposite party has acted cautiously without any delay and what he had done is the usual practice in situations like this.  In this respect also we cannot find any deficiency from the part of the opposite parties.

                25. Therefore in the overall facts and circumstances of this case   and on the basis of our observations we cannot find any deficiency of service or negligence against the opposite parties and this complaint is found not allowable.

                26. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                Declared in the Open Forum on this the 8^th day of November, 2012.

                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                   (President)

Sri. N.Premkumar (Member)             :       (Sd/-)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) :       (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :       Shyba Anna Koshy.

PW2 :       Kunjukoshy. P. G.

PW3 :       Dr. Harikumaran Nair.

PW4 :       Dr. George Kuruvilla.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1    :       Diagnosis report dated 12.10.2007 issued Muthoot Scan

                 and Research Centre in the name of the 1^st complainant.

A2    :       Discharge summary dated 19.10.2007 issued from 1^st

                 opposite party hospital.

A3    :       Discharge summary dated 31.10.2007 issued from 1^st

                 opposite party hospital.

A4 series to A6 series : Medical bills issued from 1^st opposite party

                 hospital in connection with the treatment of the 1^st

                 complainant.

A7    :       Discharge summary dated 17.11.2007 issued from

                 Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry.

A8 series : Medical bills issued from Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry

                 in respect of the treatment of the 1^st complainant.

A9    :       Copy of the advocate notice dated 29.04.2008 issued for

                 the complainant to the additional 5^th opposite party.

A10 & A11 : Postal receipt and the acknowledgment card of Ext.A9.  A12        :        Paper publication.  

A13  :       C.T. Scan film in respect of the scanning of the 1^st

                 complainant at Muthoot Scans.

A14  :       O.P. treatment records of 1^st opposite party hospital in

                 respect of the O.P. treatment of the 1^st complainant.

A15  :       I.P treatment records of the 1^st opposite party hospital in

                 respect of the treatment of the 1^st complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1        :       Dr. Mathew Tharian.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1    :       I.P treatment records of Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry

                 in respect of the 1^st complainant’s treatment. 

B2    :       O.P. treatment records of Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry

                 in respect of the treatment of the 1^st complainant.

                                                                                    (By Order)

                                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                                                         Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Shyba Anna Koshy, Pulimalil House, Oonnukal Muri,

                    Chenneerkara Village, Kozhencherry Taluk,

                    Pathanamthitta.

               (2) The Managing Director, MGM Muthoot Medical Centre,

                     Ring Road, Pathanamthitta.

(3)           Dr. Biju. V.K., Medical Officer, MGM Muthoot Medical 

        Centre, Pathanamthitta.

(4)           Dr. Vipin, Medical Officer, MGM Muthoot Medical 

       Centre, Pathanamthitta.

(5)           The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch.

                (6)  The Stock File.