DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 16/02/2019
CC/36/2019
Natarajan Pillai,
‘Vaishnavam’,
Puthankalam, Nemmara,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s. C. Nandakumaran & K.N. Abhijith)
Vs
- Manager,
Thankam Hospital of PMRC, Palakkad.
- Dr.Jayakumar B,
Thankam Hospital of PMRC, Palakkad. - Opposite parties
(OP1 by Adv. Preetha John K
OP2 by Adv. V.K.Venugopalan)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complainant claims that he was admitted to OP1 hospital and was under the treatment of 2nd OP cardiologist. The 2nd OP advised the complainant to undergo bypass surgery as there was a block in his heart. The complainant further grieves that the opposite parties had wrongly diagnosed the symptoms of the complainant and made to undergo angioplasty instead of bypass surgery. Opposite parties had with malafide and commercial considerations inserted 5 stents leading to degeneration of complainant’s health. In view of the deterioration condition, the complainant was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, where he underwent life saving surgery. Aggrieved by the faulty diagnosis and unwarranted surgical proceedings, this complaint is filed.
- O.P.s filed similar version highlighting the health history of the complainant, that they had obtained consents, that the wife of the complainant was a retired nurse, that angioplasty was as good a treatment as any for the condition suffered and that re-stenosis is a normal occurrence in so far as the surgical proceedings are concerned. Complainant was aware that the O.P. did not have facilities for carrying out bypass surgery. There was no deficiency in service or negligence whatsoever and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- The following issues arise for consideration.
- Whether the complainant has proved that bypass surgery is the only mode of treatment for treating the condition suffered by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- Reliefs as to cost and compensation?
- Any other reliefs?
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A6. Complainant was examined as PW1.
(ii) OPs filed proof affidavit. Exts.B1, B1(a) to B1(f) were marked.
(iii) Expert witness was examined as CW1.
Issue No. 1
5. Crux of the complainant’s case can be assimilated from a reading of the deposition of PW1 in page No.6, lines 19 to 21:
“Stenting AÃ, Bypass surgery BWp bYmÀ° NnInÕmhn[n F¶pÅXmWv Fsâ tIkv”.
6. Hence burden of proof is cast on the complainant to prove that the apt form of intervention is Bypass surgery and not angioplasty. In order to prove his case, the complainant produced Dr.Siyar, Cardiologist, Dist. Hospital, Palakkad who is having an experience of 35 years in the field of cardiology. He was examined as an expert (CW1). Relevant portions of deposition of CW1 are reproduced below:
Page 2, Lines 15 to 18 “Cu ]cmXn¡mc\ Bypass BWv tbmPn¨ NnInÕ F¶v ]dbm³ ]ÁnÃ. Angioplasty BWv preferred mode of treatment”.
Page 3, Lines 18 to 21 “saUn¡Â protocol {]Imcw DÅ NnInÕ BtWm lÀPn¡mc\v X¦w tlmkv]nÁen \n¶v sImSp¯Xv F¶v ]dªm AXv appropriate BWv.”
Page 4, Lines 1 to 5 “I couldn’t find any deviation from the standard protocol which is the standard practice. Diabetes block Dmhp¶Xnsâ Hcp risk factor BWv. Restenosis can happen in case of angioplasty or Bypass surgery”.
7. Patently, there are no documentary evidence, by way of authority text books, to show that Bypass surgery was the better option for the condition suffered by the complainant. Hence we are left with only the statements by CW1. CW1 has clearly stated that the treatment rendered by OPs are the appropriate type of treatment that is to be rendered to the complainant.
8. Hence the opposite parties’ case stands proved. Complainant has failed to prove that Bypass surgery was the appropriate type of treatment that needs to be rendered to the complainant.
Issue Nos. 2 to 4
9. Resultant to the finding in Issue No.1 we hold that the O.P. has rendered appropriate treatment and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
10. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
12. With the aforesaid observations and findings, this complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of July, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Smt. Vidya A.
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of coronary angiogram report dated 4/1/18
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of invoice
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of bill bearing No.1718/011677 dt.7/1/2018
Ext.A4 – Copy of lawyers notice dated 15/11/2018 along with postal receipts
Ext.A5 - Copy of lawyers notice dated 04/01/2019.
Ext.A6 - Copy of reply notice dated 30/11/2018.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Original treatment records maintained by OP1 hospital
Ext.B1(a) – Original consent dated 4/1/2018 in page 54
Ext.B1(b) - Original consent dated 4/1/2018 in page 55
Ext.B1(c) - Original general consent dated 4/1/2018 in page 57
Ext.B1(d)- Original informed consent dated 4/1/2018 in page 56
Ext.B1(e)- Original consent dated 4/1/2018 in page 58
Ext.B1(f) – Original inpatient nursing assessment in page 25
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 –Natarajan Pillai (complainant)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness:
CW1 – Siyar, Cardiologist, Dist.Hospital, Palakkad
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
