IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 08th day of May, 2023.
Filed on : 26.10.2022
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Sholy.P.R BA. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.265/2022
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Rema.P 1. The Managing Director Kattirethu Vadakkathil House Bishop Benziger Hospital
Pullikanakku.P.O Mundakkal, Kollam
Karthikapally.P.O, Alappuzha,
(Adv. P. Krishnakumar) 2. Dr. Baiju Senadhipan
Department of Gastroenterology
Bishop Benziger Hospital,
Mundakkal, Kollam.
(Adv. Thomas John Morris)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
1. Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
1st opposite party is the managing director of M/s Bishop Benziger Hospital , Mundakkal, Kollam District and the 2nd opposite party is the gastroenterology surgeon of the hospital. Complainant took consultation of the 2nd opposite party with tearing abdominal pain, bloating and vomiting. Under his consultation CT scan of the abdomen was done on 14/12/2021 and a well defined mesenteric lobulated soft tissue density lesion measuring 3.6 X 3.1 X 3.5 cms adjacent to jejuna loops alongside its anterior wall and anterior and superior to the left preinephric space was diagnosed. On 19/5/2022 another CT scan of abdomen was done and a heterogeneous enhancement to the mesenteric lymphnodal lesion was found. On 28/6/2022 complainant admitted in the hospital with the above symptoms and a laparoscopy was undergone on 29/6/2022 which was done by 2nd opposite party.
2. After one month of surgery complainant was admitted at Dr. Kunju Sahib Memorial Taluk Hospital, Kayamkulam on 29/7/2022 with chronic abdominal pain, repeated episodes of vomiting blood/hematemesis, bleeding per rectum, leakage of puss from the stitches of surgery and in the CT scan it was diagnosed that, the Proximal Jejunal Mesenteric Mass was not removed by the 2nd opposite party in the surgery. The lobulated moderately enhancing lesion with size 3.7 X 3.8 cm was noted in the left renal bed with few adjacent enlarged lymph nodes largest 8mm in SAD was seen. On 13/9/2022 complainant got admitted at Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Hospital and on 16/9/2022 she had under gone another surgery/segmental jejuna resection plusduodenojejunostomy for removing the Proximal Jejunal Mesenteric Mass.
3. The 2nd opposite party betrayed the complainant and her family by believing them that cyst in the abdomen was removed by laproscopic surgery. It is prudent for a doctor to always remember never to harm his patient and the interest of the patient is paramount, but here the 2nd opposite party obliterate the ethics of his profession by using the complainant only for his monitory benefits.
4. Since the complainant and her family was in financial difficulty the entire medical expenses was raised by her neighbours by crowd funding.
5. The entire medical treatment done by the 2nd opposite party amounts to medical mal practice and negligence which involves his failure to confirm standards of care for treatment of patient, lack of skill for carrying out a surgical procedure correctly, which is direct cause of injury to the complainant.. The cyst being untreated or unremoved, can repture and can cause damage to intestine and it is life threatening. The improper and unskilled service caused significant harm that requiring her to have an additional surgery. Negligence from the part of the 2nd opposite party caused immense harm, injury resulted in significant damage, loss of incomes, loss of enjoyment of life, pain, suffering, hardship, mental anguish and significant burden of medical bills to her.
6. Due to the medical negligence committed by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant has caused a damage of Rs. 19 lakhs towards the loss of amenities in life, medical expense, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future income, pain and suffering. Since the 1st opposite party is the employer of the 2nd opposite party they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
7. The complainant made several attempts to set thing by approaching the 2nd opposite party by seeking remedy for the damages but he replied raising untenable contentions. Thereafter on 12/8/2022 a legal notice was served seeking damage and the same was replied raising false and baseless allegations. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs. 19 lakhs along with interest as per the following statement of accounts.
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
a. Loss of earnings : Rs.2,00,000.00
b. Partial los of earnings : Rs. 5,000.00
c. Transport to Hospital : Rs. 10,000.00
d. Medical Expenses : Rs. 5,00,000.00
e. Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs. 5,50,000.00
f. Compensation for mental agony : Rs. 3,50,000.00
g. Compensation for los of earning Power
and suffering of applicant : Rs. 1,20,000.00
h. Compensation for loss of amenities in life : Rs. 3,00,000.00
TOTAL : Rs.20,35,000.00
=============
Claim is limited to Rs. 19,00,000/-.
8. Opposite parties filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts. Complainant is not a consumer and there is absolutely no negligence from the part of opposite parties so as to pay any amount of compensation. Opposite parties denies the entire allegations raised in the complaint related to commission of medical negligence from their part in treating the complainant. The treatment had been done as per medical protocols by clearly following the procedures. There is absolutely no negligence from the part of the opposite parties and hence there is no deficiency of service.
9. The complainant came to consult 2nd opposite party Dr. Baiju Senadhipan , who is a consultant Gastroenterologist at the 1st opposite party hospital. She came with complaints of pain in the abdomen region with a possible diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Complainant brought with her the CT scan report dtd. 14/12/2021 of Mother Teresa Scans and CT scan report dtd. 19/5/2022 of New Desinganad Scans, Kayamkulam. As per the said scans reports, complainant was having well defined mesenteric lobulated soft tissue density lesion adjacent to the jejuna loops ( adjacent to proximal small bowel). With the said impression of the CT scan report, the 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to go for a diagnostic laparoscopy for the removal of the said lesion. On 29/6/2022 the laparoscopic procedure was done and the peritoneal cavity was thoroughly examined and the omental adhesions seen in the said area was removed and sent for biopsy. The impression of the biopsy report was ‘Omental biopsy with haemorrhage and congestion’. The 2nd opposite party who is an expert gastroenterology laparoscopic surgeon had done the procedure with the utmost care and caution and removed the omental adhesions as was present.
10. The diagnostic procedure and the follow up treatment were given by the opposite parties following treatment protocol with absolute care and caution. The complainant was also given follow up treatment and medications upto 18/7/2022 as per the medical file of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant had not visited the opposite parties with any specific complaints.
11. The complainant was given treatment as per the diagnosis and impression of the CT scan and there is absolutely no negligence from the part of the opposite parties and in particular from the part of the 2nd opposite party doctor. The opposite parties has not done any acts contemplating deficiency in service so as to concede to the complainant’s demand for the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,35,000/- with interest as claimed in different heads. The complainant has not truthfully come before this Commission and by filing this complaint, she is trying to bring in an unsubstantiated case just to fund ways to obtain unlawful amounts from the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party had treated the complainant with utmost care by following procedural protocols with the support of the scan reports brought by her. The 1st opposite party had given all the required post procedure as well as ante procedure care to the complainant. There is absolutely no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice from the part of any of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
12. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties in treating the complainant ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 19 lakhs along with interest from the opposite parties as prayed for?
3. Reliefs and costs?
13. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and 2 and Exts. A1 to A8 from the part of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 to 3 and Ext.B1series to B3 series from the part of opposite parties. Ext.X1 and X2 were produced by PW2.
14. Point. No. 1 and 2:-
PW1 is the complainant. She filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A8.
15. PW2 is working as doctor attached to Gasterology department in Medical College Hospital Trivandrum. On 16/9/2022 he had conducted a surgery upon PW1, Rema. During June 2022 PW1 approached him with a swelling in the small intestine. Her left kidney had already removed. On studying the case records it was noticed that it is not malignant. Previously a surgery was conducted in some other hospital. She got admitted on 13/9/2022 and the surgery was conducted on 16/9/2022. She was discharged on 26/9/2022. She had shown Ext.A2 at the time of admission. The size of the lesion seen in Ext.A1 and A2 scan reports are one and the same. Patient had already undergone a keyhole surgery. At the time of Keyhole surgery lesion will be removed through an open surgery, if it is large. As per Ext.A3 on 29/6/2022 the keyhole surgery was done. At the time of admission patient had puss below umbilicus. Ext.A6 is the photograph of the portion which was removed from the body of PW1. Since the patient had undergone two surgeries it is desirable to remove the lesion by an open surgery. During cross examination Ext.B1 series were marked.
16. RW1 is the 2nd opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B1 series and B2.
17. RW2 is working as Asst. Professor at Pathology Department, Medical College Hospital Trivandrum. Ext.X1 is the histopathology examination request of patient by name Rema. The histopathology report is marked as Ext.X2. As per Ext.X1 request two specimens were sent as ‘a and b’. As per Ext.X2 report diagnosis of specimen ‘a’ is Mesenteric shows cholesterol granuloma of size 3.5 x 3.5 x 3 cms. ‘b’ specimen showed granulation tissue and a tiny epidermal cyst.
18. Cholesterol granuloma is a lesion and it is not a scar or a tumor. It is benign and it cannot be said that it is harmless. Along with the specimen 19 cms of small intestine were also sent. Cholesterol granuloma was identified after histopathology test.
19. RW3 is the Head of Surgical Gastroenterology Department of M/s Lakeshore Hospital Kochi. He has got 33 years experience of laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal surgery. Ext.A1 and A2 are the scan reports dtd. 19/5/2022 and 14/12/2021. These reports indicate the possible presence of a soft tissue lesion closed to the left kidney space. The size are roughly same in both scan reports. Diagnostic laparoscopy is well within the normal cause of action. After verifying the records it was stated that 3 ports in laparoscopic surgery are available. Cholesterol granuloma can occur in the abdomen in relation to nephrotamy. Cholesterol granuloma may be an inflammatory reaction after kidney removal, but it is not common. After perusal of the records he opined that 2nd opposite party had either took a wrong diagnosis or has committed any sort of negligence. As per Ext.X1, X2 report surgical investigation may could have been avoided. After going through Ext.A1 and A2 scan report he opined that a diagnostic laparoscopic procedure cannot be found fault with. He also opined that there was no inappropriation in management of the complainant.
20. The substance of the evidence is discussed above. During December 2021 PW1, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party at the 1st opposite party hospital with tearing abdominal pain, bloating and vomiting. 2nd opposite party directed for a CT scan of the abdomen and accordingly on 14/12/2021 Ext.A1 scan report was obtained which revealed as follows:- well defined mesenteric lobulated soft tissue density lesion measuring 3.6 X 3.1 X 3.5 cms seen adjacent to jejuna loops alongside its anterior wall and anterior and superior to the left preinephric space. No significant mesenteric fact stranding.
21. Thereafter Ext.A2 scan report was obtained on 19/5/2022 which revealed as follows:- multiple descreate well defined homogenously enhancing sub centimeter sized mesenteric limph notes are also noted, largest measuring 7mm(MSV in LIF and. 7.3 mm (MSD in RIF).
22. On 28/6/2022 PW1 was admitted at the 1st opposite party hospital and on 29/6/2022 2nd opposite party conducted a laparoscopy upon PW1.
23. After about one month ie, on 29/7/2022 PW1 was admitted at Dr. Kunjusahib Memorial Taluk Hospital, Kayamkulam with chronic abdominal pain vomiting blood, bleeding per rectum, leakage of puss etc. and a CT scan was recommended. Accordingly Ext.A4 CT scan was done on 1/8/2022 which revealed as follows:- 3.7 X 3.8 cm lobulated moderately enhancing lesion is noted in the left renal bud with few adjacent enlarge limphnotes largest 8 mm in SAD.
24. On 13/9/2022 PW1 was admitted at Medical College Hospital Trivandrum and on 16/9/2022 she had undergone another surgery done by PW2 Dr. Bony Nadesh. According to PW1 from Ext.A4 scan report it was revealed that the lesion found on her abdominel as per Ext.A1 and A2 report was not removed by 2nd opposite party, though it was stated that it was removed by laparoscopic surgery. It is alleged that the lesion was removed by the surgery conducted at Medical College Hospital Trivandrum by PW2, Dr. Bony Nadesh. So there was negligence from the part of 2nd opposite party in treating her and hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs. 19 lakh along with interest on various heads. Opposite parties filed a joint version contenting that the complainant was treated as per medical protocols by clearly following the procedures. As per Ext.A1 and A2 scan reports complainant was having well defined mesenteric lobulated soft tissue density adjacent to jejuna loops. 2nd opposite party had conducted a diagnostic laparoscopic for the removal of the said lesion on 29/6/2022 and the procedure was done and the peritoneal cavity was thoroughly examined and the omental adherence were removed and sent for biopsy. There was no negligence in treating PW1 and the treatment was done as per the accepted protocol and hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked as Ext. A1 to A8. Doctor attached to Medical College Hospital Trivandrum who conducted surgery upon PW1 was examined as PW2 and Ext.B1 series were marked. 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B2 was marked. Two witnesses were examined as RW2 and RW3. RW2 produced Ext.X1 and X2 series and Ext.B3 series were marked through RW3. Relying upon the oral evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with the documents marked the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the complaint is proved as per law and so the complainant is entitled for the relief sought. It was pointed out that on a comparison of Ext. A1, A2 and A4 scan reports it is crystal clear that though a laparoscopy was done upon PW1 the lesion was not removed, thereby complainant was treated negligently. It was also alleged that consent was obtained for a surgery whereas procedure done was laparascopy. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties pointed out that only a diagnostic laparoscopy was done upon PW1. It was pointed out that even after the surgery conducted by PW2 PW1 is even unable to stand or sit at the time of giving evidence. It was pointed out that she was struggling at the time of giving evidence before this commission on 9/2/2023 ie, at the time of her examination. It was pointed out that from the oral evidence of RW3 an expert it can be seen that diagnostic laparoscopy is an accepted procedure and so no negligence can be attributed to the treatment done by RW1, the 2nd opposite party at the 1st opposite party hospital. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint. In support of his contentions he filed an argument note and also relied upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum Sharma and Ors Vs. Bathra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Ors. (2010 KHC 4094).
25. Admittedly during December 2021 PW1 consulted RW1 at the 1st opposite party hospital with complaints of tearing abdominal pain, bloating and vomiting and as per his request scanning was done on 14/12/2021 and Ext.A1 report was obtained. From Ext.A 1 report it was revealed that there is a well defined mesenteric lobulated soft tissue density lesion measuring 3.6 X 3.1 X 3.5 cms adjacent to jejuna loops. Thereafter Ext.A2 scan report was obtained on 19th May 2022, in which also it is revealed that there is a lesion of size 3.8 X 3.5 X 3.6 cms adjacent to anterior wall of jejuna loops. On the basis of Ext.A1 and A2 scan reports PW1 was admitted at 1st opposite party hospital on 28/6/2022 and on 29/6/2022 a diagnostic laparoscopy was done by Rw1 and omental adhesion was removed and she was discharged on 30/6/2022. After about one month ie, on 29/7/2022 there was chronic abdominal pain and repeated episodes of omitting and PW1 was admitted at M/s Kunjusahib Memorial Taluk Hospital Kayamkulam. Scanning was done on 1/8/2022 and Ext.A4 scan report was obtained which showed 3.7 X 3.8 cm lobulated moderately enhancing lesion in the left renal bud. Thereafter PW1 had admitted at Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum and on 16/9./2022 a surgery was conducted upon her by PW2 Dr. Bony Nadesh. Professor of surgical gastroenterology. Ext.A6 lesion and small intestine at a length of 19 cms (jejuna) was removed. Now the allegation of PW1 is that she was operated by RW1 for the abdominal pain on the basis of Ext.A1 and A2 scan report but the lesion was not removed and hence she was cheated by the doctor and it is also alleged that she was treated negligently and there was deficiency of service. Ext.A8 notice was issued on 12/8/2022 demanding an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest for which Ext.B2 reply was sent on 20/9/2022. Since the demanded amount as per Ext.A8 lawyers notice was not paid the complaint is filed on 26/10/2022 for realizing an amount of Rs.19 lakhs on various heads. The contention of RW1, 2nd opposite party is that on the basis of Ext.A1 and A2 he conducted a diagnostic laparoscopy and the omental adhesion was removed. According to him the treatment was done as per the protocol and there was no negligence in treating PW1.
26. After the surgery conducted at Medical College Hospital Trivandrum specimen was sent for Pathology department and RW2 is the Asst. Professor of Department of Pathology Govt. Medical College Trivandrum. Ext. X1 is the request for histopathology examination and Ext.X2 is the histopathology report. The evidence of RW2 coupled with Ext.X2 report shows that the mesentery shows cholesterol granuloma having size 3.5 x 3.5 x 3 cms. Admittedly the left kidney of PW1 was removed earlier under a surgery and there is chance of Cholesterol granuloma appearing in the said part. RW3 is an expert in the field of Surgical Gastroentrology who is having more than 33 years of experience. After verifying the records he stated that on the basis of Ext.A1 and A2 RW1 conducted a diagnostic laparoscopy upon PW1 which is well within the normal course of action. Cases of cholesterol granuloma in the abdomen in relation to nephrotomy do suggest a benign characteristics and outcomes. Cholesterol Granuloma may be an inflammatory reaction after kidney removal but it is not common. Here in this case after kidney removal of PW1 cholesterol granuloma occurred and it may appear as a lesion which was found in Ext.A1 and A2 scan reports. After perusing the entire records which was marked as Ext.B3 series Rw3 stated that Rw1 has not committed any sought of negligence. On the basis of Ext.A1 and A2 scan reports a diagnostic laparoscopy procedure cannot be found fault with. It was pointed out that cholesterol granuloma is a benign condition and he could not find out any in appropriation in management of the complainant.
27. According to RW1 it is not necessary to remove the lesion found in Ext.A1 and A2 by conducting an open surgery. It is advisable to conduct a diagnostic laparoscopic and after confirming a surgery is to be done if necessary. Here in this case RW1 had conducted a diagnostic laparoscopy on the basis of Ext.A1 and A2 scan reports for which he cannot be blamed. It is true that PW2 removed the lesion (Ext.A6) and removed 19 cms of small intestine (jejuna). From Ext.X2 histopathology report it is revealed that there was no malignancy and the 19 cm of small intestine which was cut and removed was not having any problem. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties even after conducting surgery upon PW1 by PW2 on 16/9/2022 the abdominal pain was not cured fully. PW1 was examined before this Commission on 9/2/2023. At the time of giving evidence she was struggling and she cannot even sit and stand continuously even for a period of 3 to 5 minutes. So it is an indication that even after the surgery conducted by PW2 the abdoiminal pain of PW1 was not completely cured. The evidence of RW3 the expert in the field of surgical gastroenterology shows that diagnostic laparoscopy conducted by RW1 is well within the treatment protocol and there was no negligence from the part of RW1.
28. RW1 explained that he conducted diagnostic laparoscopy and ascertained that there was no lesion and removed the omental adhesion. The lesion which was found in the CT scan was not seen at the time of laparoscopy and so he did not remove the same. Since the left kidney of Pw1 had already removed there is chance of adhesion at the said part which will appear as a lesion in CT scan. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties it is noticed that the impression seen in Ext.A1 and A2 defers from the impression seen in Ext.A4 scan report. As per Ext.A4 scan report the mass is seen in the left renal bed of PW1. As stated earlier though PW2 conducted surgery during September 2022 at the time of examination of PW1 during February 2023 it appears that the complications of PW1 still persists and so she was unable to sit for a few minutes.
29. It was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that for conducting a diagnostic laparoscopy consent was not obtained from the complainant and the consent obtained was for conducting a surgery. Ongoing through the records it is seen that such a contention is false. Ext.B3 series is the treatment records of PW1 at the 1st opposite party hospital. Page No. 23 is the consent obtained on 29/6/2022 for laparoscopy. It is seen signed by PW1 and one Salini who is her daughter. So the contention that laparoscopy was conducted after obtaining consent for surgery appears to be not true. Further on going through the complaint it is seen that consent was not an issue in the same and only at the time of adducing evidence the consent issue was pressed into service. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyam Narayan Parasad Vs. Krishna Prasad ( 2018) 7 SCC 646).
“Pleadings are meant to give to each side, intimation of the case of the other, so that, it may be met to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties. No relief can be granted to a party without the pleadings.”
30. So without pleading regarding consent complainant cannot agitate the same. The evidence on record especially the evidence of RW3 expert shows that there was no negligence from the part of RW1 in treating PW1 and the procedures followed by RW3 is as per accepted protocol. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for opposite parties even after the surgery conducted by PW2 and removal of the lesion PW1 is unable to sit for a moment at the time of giving evidence before this Commission.
31. In canvassing a dismissal the learned counsel appearing for opposite parties relied upon a ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum Sharma and Others Vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Ors. ( 2010 KHC 4094). It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
“ On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries specially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/ her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/ hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
XI. The medical professional are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.
32. Hence assessing the evidence as a whole and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it can be safely concluded that complainant could not prove that there was negligence from the part of RW1 in treating her. She failed to prove that there was deficiency of service from the part of RW1 in treating her. In said circumstance PW1 is not entitled for a favourable order and so these points are found against her.
33. Point No. 3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 08th day of May, 2023.
Sd/- Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Rema.P(complainant
Ext.A1 - Legal Notice dtd. 31/1/2023
Ext.A2 - Franchise Agreement
Ext.A3 - Document completion Certificate
Ext.A4 - copy of service details
Ext.A5 - copy of payment receipt
Ext.A6 - Copy of Payment receipt
Ext.A7 - Email complaint
Ext.A8 - Email complaint
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Dr. Baiju Senadhipan(2nd OP)
RW2 - Dr. Lakshmy M. R(witness)
RW3 - Dr. H. Ramesh(witness)
Ext.B1series - Treatment Records
Ext. B2 - Reply Notice
Ext.B3 - Medical Records
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Comp.by:
