Karnataka

Kolar

CC/6/2021

Smt.Venkatalakshmamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Medical Superitendent, R.L.Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre - Opp.Party(s)

C.B.Jayarama

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing: 19/02/2021

Date of Order: 28/02/2023

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES,KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 28^thDAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 06 OF 2021

Smt. Venkatalakshmamma,

W/o. Shankarappa,

Aged About 50 Years,

Resident of Valagernahalli

Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Srinivaspur Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri. C.B. Jayarama, Advocate)                     ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Medical Superintendent,

R.L. Jalappa Hospital &

Research Centre,

Attached to Sri Devraj Urs

Medical College, Tamaka,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri.A.Lakshminarayana, Advocate)             …. Opposite Party.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the Opposite Party alleging negligence of the OP doctors in conducting the operation at OP-hospital and thereby alleged that, she had suffered pain and sufferings and due to which underwent 2^nd operation at Manipal Hospital at Bangalore and hence pray to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and the expenditure incurred by her and to grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

 

02.  The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is having two daughter and a son and residing along with her husband who is also suffering from Cancer disease.  It is stated that, the complainant is working as Asha Worker.  It is stated that, due to suffering pain in her right arm swelling and thereon she had approached the OP hospital on 26.07.2019 for treatment.  Further stated that, after examining the complainant by the OP Doctors they advised to undergo operation due to Neurofibroma over medial aspect of right arm, accordingly complainant got admitted to the OP Hospital on 31.07.2019 at 12.37 PM and underwent surgery on 02.08.2019.  It is stated further that, despite discharge from the OP-hospital on 10.08.2019 and after follow-up treatment complainant was suffering persistent pain in her right arm.  It is stated that, for the above said operation the complainant had incurred medical expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/-.   Thereafter complainant suffered persistent pain in her right arm and hence she approached the Manipal Hospital for check-up on 11.09.2019 and as per the advice of the doctors once again the complainant admitted to the Manipal Hospital on 12.09.2019 and underwent surgery i.e., Right Radial nerve neuroma excision biopsy with reconstruction using sural nerve graft under general anesthesia by Dr. Ashok B.C and thereafter she was discharged on 14.09.2019 with an advice to undergoing follow up treatment.  Thereafter complainant followed the advice of Doctors of Manipal Hospital.  In the Manipal Hospital the complainant had incurred medical expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/- for 2^nd operation.  The complainant further states that, she had taken treatment at both the hospitals by taking hand loan from her relatives on interest basis and she has to discharge the loans to them.  On the above said grounds complainant alleged negligence of the OP-hospital doctor in conducting the 1^st surgery and hence this complaint.

 

03.   On issuance of notice from this Commission and the OP appeared through its counsel, but did not choose to file version as noted in the order-sheet dated: 08.07.2021.

 

04.   In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence along with documents Annexure-1 to 18 and so also filed photographs and one CD as Annexure-19 to 20. 

 

05.   Further during the course of proceedings complainant to urge his case in a better manner by appointing a Commissioner examined the Dr. Ashok B.C of Manipal Hospital and recorded his evidence.

06.   On the basis of complainant averments and the evidence placed on record the following points will arise for our consideration:-

(1) Whether the complainant proves that, there is a negligence of the OP Doctors in conducting surgery on 02.08.2019 and thereby its leads to deficiency in service?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

(3) What order?

07.   Heard the arguments and perused the written arguments.

 

08.   Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

                POINT Nos.1 & 2:-   Are in the Negative

                POINT No.3:-   As per the final order

                                        For the following:-

 

REASONS

09.   POINT NOs.(1) & (2):- These points are taken up together for common discussion, for brevity and for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts.

10.   On perusal of the complaint petition along with the documents placed on record, it is the specific case of the complainant is that, she had approached the OP-hospital for suffering pain in her right arm and thereby she was admitted to the OP hospital on 31.07.2019 and as per the examination of the doctors as the complainant was suffering from Neurofibroma and accordingly advised to undergo surgery.  Further as per the advice of the OP doctors and the complainant underwent surgery on 02.08.2019 with the consent of her family members.  It is the allegation of the complainant though she was discharged from the OP hospital on 10.08.2019 and gone through the follow-up treatment she had suffering persistent pain in her right arm.  Thereafter complainant went to R.L. Jalappa Hospital and informed the doctors about her getting pain in her right arm and the doctors replied that, it will be cured and advised her to take medicines.  Further states that, complainant incurred medical expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/- for bills, food and nutritious food.  It is stated that, after taking medicines given by the OP hospital doctors complainant will not be cured and she was suffering severe pain as such complainant had approached the Manipal Hospital, on 11.09.2019.  Thereafter as per the examination and advice of the doctors at Manipal Hospital once again the complainant underwent surgery on 12.09.2019 i.e., Right Radial nerve neuroma excision biopsy with reconstruction using sural nerve graft under General Anesthesia by Dr. Ashok B.C.  Hence the complainant particularly alleged that, due to negligence of the OP hospital doctors while conducting the 1^st surgery and it made her to go for 2^nd surgery at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, and due to which complainant incurred huge medical expenditure. 

 

11. The crux of the matter is to consider that, whether the OP doctors are negligent while conducting the surgery on 02.08.2019 and it leads to second operation i.e., surgery for Right Radial Nerve Neuroma Excision Biopsy. Whereas in order to resist the allegations made in the complaint OP did not turn to file their version, however judgment is not automatic and it is the duty of the complainant especially in the medical negligence cases should prove his case by placing cogent evidence.  In this particular case despite the opportunity complainant failed to produce the opinion of expert doctors in support of her allegations against the OP hospital for their medical negligence or lack of medical treatment.  Just because non-filing of the version or the weakness of the OP is not the trump card in order to appreciate the case of the complainant.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant filed 19 documents.  On perusal of the document No.4 it reveals that, the complainant has lodged the police complaint alleging that, the OP doctors due to their negligence operation is not successful and it leads to 2^nd surgery and prayed to take action in accordance with law.  Whereas the document No.3 it discloses that, one Dr. Rahul Singh, department of general surgery, R.L. Jalappa hospital, Kolar, given explanation to the police notice issued on 06.11.2019 it reads thus:-

“With reference to the complaint filed by the patient Smt. Venkatalakshmamma, who was admitted in R.L. Jalappa Hospital on 31.07.2019, 12.37 PM, UHID No.747609, with complaints of a swelling in the right upper arm since 6 months.  The patient admitted in surgery unit 1, the team then comprised of Dr. Bhaskaran A (unit chief), Dr. Sukanya M and Dr. Pavan BK (Assistant Professors), Dr. Rahul Singh R (Senior resident).

  At the time of admission, the diagnosis of the patient’s ailment was a “Benign Spindle Cell Tumor consistent with Neurofibroma”, as mentioned in the FNAC report which was brought by the patient to our OPD (FNAC done at an outside hospital on 30.07.2019).  The team of Surgery unit I explained the patient and her attendants in their own understandable language regarding her ailment and the management protocol of which surgery was one part.  The possible port-operative complications were also explained to the patient and her attendants prior to the surgery in their own understandable language and a written and informed consent was taken pre-operatively (the copy of which is hereby attached with this letter).

  As consented by the patient and her attendants she was posted for surgery and as decided by the team of surgery unit 1 she underwent complete excision and Biopsy of the swelling on 02.08.2019.  On post-operative day 1 the patient developed difficulty in moving her right wrist (right wrist drop).  We suspected it to be a ? Neuropraxia.  Orthopedician opinion was taken for the same and as advised, a Cock-up-splint was applied and started on regular physiotherapy.

  The patient and her attendants were explained regarding further stay in the hospital and management.  But they requested to discharge the patient at that point of time.  A proper counseling was done and the patient was asked to visit the hospital for regular physiotherapy and further management.  The patient was discharged on request by her and her attendants on 10.08.2019 (discharge at request has been mentioned in the discharge summary).

  The patient failed to visit us for further follow up anymore.

  Whatever the treatment given to the patient Smt. Venkatalakshmamma, was keeping in mind her well-being and not at the cost of any adverse circumstances.

  I Dr. Rahul Singh R, working as a Senior Resident in the department presently, and as per my knowledge the treatment planned and executed was ethical and as per the protocol.”

Based on the said report the concerned jurisdictional police the Medical Superintendent sent a letter dated: 29.11.2019 and 16.11.2019 as evidenced by the document Nos.1 & 2 wherein which the hospital authorities reported that, after the surgery and the patient was discharged on 10.08.2019 and the patient did not turned down to OP hospital for alleging any pain. 

 

12.   It is worth to note that, the complainant without examining any independent expert doctor in the field, but examined the Dr. Ashok B C working in the department of Plastic and surgery, Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, by appointing a Court Commissioner.  On perusal of his evidence nothing is elicited in his evidence that the OP hospital doctors negligent in conducting the surgery which leads to 2^nd surgery as alleged. 

 

13.   It is noteworthy to mention that, in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that, negligence is the breach of duty exercised by omission to do some other which a reasonable man, guided by those consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

 

14.   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.

 

15.   On overall perusal of the case of the complainant, complainant failed to examine the expert doctor to show that, the OP hospital doctor was not taken the standard of care and the skill attained was that of the ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising an ordinary degree of professional skill.  Further complainant also not placed cogent evidence in order to demonstrate that, the OP-hospital doctor is negligent in his duty.  On the basis of above discussion we reached to conclusion that the complainant failed to prove OP hospital doctor is negligent in his duty and thereby failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP-hospital doctor.  Under the circumstances complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered point Nos.1 & 2 are in the Negative.

16.   POINT NO.3:-  In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023)

 

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                          PRESIDENT