Date of filing:       28.03.2012

                                                                     Date of transfer:  16.06.2022

                                                                     Date of order:      20.10.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE

PRESENT:    THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L.           PRESIDENT

        THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L.                          MEMBER – I

SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A.,           MEMBER-II

THURSDAY THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINANT NO. 42/2022

T.K.M. Ganeshkumar,

S/o. Kaliamurthy,    

10/6, Shanmugha Naicker 2nd Street,

K.K. Nagar West,

Chennai – 600 078.                                                                         ...Complainant 

-Vs-

1.The Secretary,

   Government of Tamil Nadu,

   Department of Health and Family Welfare,

   Fort St, George,

   Chennai – 600 009.

2. Dean,

    Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,

    Park Town,

    Chennai – 600 003.    

3. Resident Medical Officer,

    Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,

    Park Town,

    Chennai – 600 003.                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Counsel for complainant                 : Thiru. S. Ratnakaran

Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 :  Thiru. Ponram rajaa

ORDER

THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT

    This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for sufferings and deficiency in service and for cost.

1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:

    The complainant had met with an accident on 23.07.2011, while he was driving his two wheeler and sustained severe injuries.  After getting first aid at K.K. Nagar, Government Hospital he was referred to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai – 3 and admitted there at accident Trauma ward as inpatient No. 6586 at about 11.30 A.M on 23.07.2011.  The complainant had paid Rs.350/- as charges but he was not provided further treatment properly, even though the complainant was suffering from severe pain and bulging in stomach and abdominal area and he could not pass urine also.   Inspite of repeated requests by the complainant and his wife with regard to the sufferings, the duty doctor who attended the complainant was very casually and discharged the complainant on 24.07.2011.  The opposite party stating that there was only a fracture in the ribs and the opposite parties had totally failed to attend the complaints of the complainant with regard to swelling in the stomach and pain in the legs, as such the complainant immediately rushed to Sri Ramachandra Hospital Porur, where it was diagnosed that the complainant had fracture in pelvic bone and rupture of spleen also.  For that he was subjected to a surgery and only there after he had become alright.  Since the opposite party failed to diagnose about the fracture of pelvic bone and rupture of spleen it would amount to negligence and deficiency in service, as such the complainant had issued a legal notice to the second and third opposite parties on 05.01.2012, calling upon them to pay Rs.3 Lakhs as compensation along with the cost of  Rs.5,000/-, but the opposite party had neither sent any reply nor complied with the demand.  Hence, this complaint.

2. The written version of opposite parties are as follows:

    The complaint is not maintainable against these opposite parties since second and third opposite parties are the Government servants availed the medical service under Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai-3. There was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainants and the opposite parties.  Thiru.T.K.M. Ganeshkumar had been referred from K.K. Nagar Peripheral Hospital as Out Patient – 2446, AR-4367289 stating RTA with Head injury and blunt injury abdomen conscious per abdomen soft.  Patient had been given first aid and sent to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai-3 for further management.  Patient was admitted on 24.07.2011 in the casualty at 1.30.a.m.  Admitted in Trauma ward at 1.50 a.m. Patient as per Abdomen (P/A) soft as per medical cases sheet and he was advised to take CT Brain on 24.04.2011 and he paid Rs.350/- as charges.  Neurosurgery opinion has been obtained and ruled out acute Neurosurgical problem.  Patient was seen by DAS Dr. Nedunchezian and seen by PG Dr. Abdul Malick and the abdomen examination did not reveal any signs and was soft.  The patient / complainant has given a false statement that there was a bulge in the abdomen and did not pass urine.   The patient/complainant did not mention pain in pelvis at any time throughout the stay in the hospital as per medical case sheet. The patient/complainant had given wrong information that he had fracture in ribs, X-ray chest had been taken and found to be normal.  The duty orthopeadician opinion had been obtained X-rays had been taken and found to be normal for Orthopedics, patient/complainant had been discharged at 10.00 a.m. on 24.07.2011, usually the patients are discharged 6.00 p.m. and the need for discharge for this patient/complainant could not be ruled out.  At every stage the patient/complainant had been medically evaluated in Neuro, Ortho, Chest, etc., as per Medical case sheet, X-ray and CT scan and the same had been stated in the medical treatment sheets in both hospitals.  The patient/complainant has informed that he went to Sri Ramachandra Hospital at 3.17p.m. after 5 hours getting discharged from Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai-3 for reason not known. The opposite party states that Splenic injury can have delayed presentation and managed Conservatively, but due to the time delay in travelling, the Blood clots would have dislodged leading to Hemoperitoneum.  Pelvic injuries can present late and need conservative management only. The complainant had been given first aid at Peripheral K.K. Nagar Hospital and then referred to Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai-3 for further management.  Since, it had a RTA case, the opposite parties hospital Doctors had given good treatment to the complainant and further the opposite parties state that the patient /complainant had suffered, would have got discharged on his own, against medical advice if he was not been attended to, but in this case, it is not so, as the patient had been discharged after evaluating his ailments. He had been examined neurologically and for Orthopedic and Chest. On discharge he had also been advised to come to Neuro OP and to continue medicines. On perusal of the medical case sheet of the patient/complainant, it is seen there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   This Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.                                                                                                       

3.    Proof affidavit of complainant filed, Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked.  Proof affidavit of  opposite parties  filed. Ex.B1 marked. Written argument of both sides filed.                                                                                                                                   

4.The points that of arises for consideration are:

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite      

               parties?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?

3. To what relief complainant is entitled to?

5. Point Nos.1 & 2:        The contention of the complainant is that he had met with an accident on 23.07.2011 while he was riding the two wheeler and sustained injury.  An FIR was registered in Cr.No.359/2011 under section 279 and 338.  Immediately after the accident, the complainant  who got first aid at the Government Hospital at K.K.Nagar.  Thereafter he was referred to Government Rajivi Gandhi General Hospital Chennai where he has admitted as inpatient in accident trauma ward at about 11.30 p.m. on 23.07.2011.   He was asked to take CT scan of brain for which he has paid Rs.350/-.  The complainant was suffering from severe pain and bulging in stomach and abdominal area and he could not pass urine also.  In spite of the repeated requests by the complainant and his wife with regard to the sufferings, the duty doctor who attended the complainant very casually discharged the complainant on 24.07.2011, stating that there was only a fracture in the ribs and it would become alright.  As per Ex.A3 discharge advise given by the second opposite party the doctors prescribed some medicines and bandage, the doctors had failed to attended the complainant with regard to swelling in the stomach and pain in the legs, as such complainant was immediately rushed to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, where it was diagnosed that the complainant had fracture in pelvic  bone and rupture of spleen also.

6.    For that the complainant was undergone surgery to treat the rupture in spleen and rectify the fracture in pelvic bone and the complainant was discharged on 01.08.2011 as per Ex.A6 discharge summary, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are the investigation report of Sri. Ramachandra hospital Doctor’s note sheet respectively.  Since, the duty doctors at the opposite parties hospital, failed to diagnose the rupture in the spleen and the fracture in the pelvic bone, the complainant had suffered like anything and it forced the complainant to go to Sri. Ramachandra Hospital where he had to spent Rs.1,24,721/- towards his treatment. The complainant alleged that the doctors at second opposite party’s Hospital were committed medically negligent and deficient in their service.  The learned counsel for the complainant would draw the attention of this Commission to Ex.A3 and Ex.A6 and as per Ex.A3 discharge advice given by the second opposite party’s hospital, they had simply diagnosed that it is only a fracture of rib and discharged him on the very next day of the accident with an advice to come for review without taking care of the problems in the stomach.    

7.    Whereas in the written version filed by the opposite party though they were admitted that the complainant was referred from K.K. Nagar, Peripheral Hospital RTA with Head injury and blunt injury abdomen conscious per abdomen soft.  But, the complainant was advised to take CT brain. Since, the complainant did not any complaint with regard to the bulgy in the abdomen and did not pass urine.  Therefore they took CT brain only.  The complainant did not mentioned pain in pelvis at any time throughout the stay in the hospital as per medical case sheet.  The patient/complainant had given wrong information that he had fracture in ribs, X-ray chest had been taken and found to be normal.  The opinion of the Duty orthopeadician opinion had been obtained X-rays had been taken and found to be normal for Orthopaedics, Patient/complainant had been discharged at 10.00 a.m. on 24.07.2011. Usually the patients are discharged 6.00 p.m. and the need for discharge  for this patient/complainant could not be ruled out.  At every stage the patient/complainant had been medically evaluated in Neuro, Ortho, Chest, etc., as per Medical case sheet, X-ray and CT scan and the same had been stated in the medical treatment sheets in both hospitals.  Splenic injury can have delayed presentation and managed Conservatively, but due to the time delay in travelling, the Blood clots would have dislodged leading to Hemoperitoneum Splenic injuries up to grade-II can be managed conservatively, but since the patient had travelled for 5 hours that would have led to the dislodgement of clot and Hemoperitoneum.  Pelvic injuries can present late and need conservative management only.   Since, it had a RTA case, the opposite parties hospital  Doctors had given good treatment to the complainant and further the opposite parties submitted that the patient/complainant had suffered, would have got discharged on his own, against medical advice.  The patient had been discharged after evaluating his ailments.  He had been examined Neurologically, Orthopaedic and Chest.  On discharge  he had also been advised to come to Neuro OP and also advised to continue medicines.  On perusal of the medical case sheet of the patient/complainant.  It is seen that  there is no negligence and deficiency of service in any stage of the treatment and further submitted that the opposite parties had complied with the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement of V.P. Shantha case. 

8.     But the counsel for the complainant contended that if the second and third opposite parties properly diagnose the abdominal area of the complainant, he need not have under gone another surgery at private hospital which incurring to the tune of Rs.1,24,721/-.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the second and third opposite parties. On perusal of Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 namely the investigation report, doctor’s note sheet and discharge summary of Ramachandra Hospital would go to show that the complainant had sustained fracture in left  8th rib, and fracture at right ala of the sacrum and right superior pubic ramus. They had also found collections of fluid in the abdominal cavity and laceration of spleen.  Further, on perusal of the discharge summary would go to show that on 24.07.2011 itself the complainant was subjected to surgery and 2 litters of fluid was  sucked out from the peritoneum and the splenic injury was identified and clamped and the complainant was discharged on 01.08.2011. Had the doctors at second opposite parties hospital were prudent enough, the splenic injury would have been properly identified and the pelvic fractures also been identified and the complainant would not have subjected to so much of pain and suffering from getting discharged himself at Government Hospital and rushed to SRMC Porur.  The discharge summary issued by Sri. Ramachandra  Hospital, Porur itself, we may consider as expert evidence with regard to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  Since, there is no contra evidence to show that of the complainant given proper treatment the opposite parties, since it is being established by Ex.A6 discharge summary of SRMC, Porur that the complainant’s spleen injury was not diagnosed by the stomach pain and he was recklessly discharged on very next day of accident.  As such this Commission, come to the conclusion that the complainant had established that there is a medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.      In our consider opinion when the complainant himself admitted as inpatient at the second opposite party hospital.  In the reference sheet itself has been mentioned that RTA and head injury and blunt injury in abdomen, when the Doctors of the second opposite party chosen to took CTS scan for brain.  We did get any answer from the written version or from the written argument why they did not take any examination in so far as abdomen injury which has been subsequently diagnose by the private hospital and find that there is a injury in the abdominal area.  Ultimately an operation was done in the private hospital and to treat abdomen injury.  Hence, these point Nos.1 &2 are answered in favour of the complainant as against the opposite parties. 

10.    POINT NO.3:    As we decided in point No.1 and 2, that there is a deficiency in  service on the part of the opposite parties.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.  Hence, this Point No. 3 is also answered accordingly.

 11.     In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of this order to till the date of realization.     

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20th October 2022.

    Sd/-                     Sd/-                      Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                          MEMBER – II                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-23.07.2011 – Copy of admission slip to the government hospital, Chennai.

Ex.A2-24.07.2007 – Copy of scan payment slip

Ex.A3-24.07.2011 -  Copy of discharge advise given at Government hospital

Ex.A4-24.07.2011 – Copy of investigation report at Sri. Ramachandra hospital 

Ex.A5                    -  Copy of Doctors note sheets

Ex.A6-01.08.2011 -  Copy of discharge summary of Sri. Ramachandra  hospital

Ex.A7-01.08.2011 -  Copy of package bill summary

Ex.A8-18.08.2011 -  Copy of first information report

Ex.A9-05.01.2012 -  Copy of legal notice by the complainants

Ex.A10                  -  Copy of acknowledgement cards

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.B1            -  Copies of the Medical Treatment sheets series given to the 

                        Complainant

    Sd/-                     Sd/-                      Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                          MEMBER – II                                PRESIDENT