Saturday, June 19, 2010

DF: Medical Negligence

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT PUDUCHERRY

Consumer Complaint No.35/2006

Dated this the 12th day of November , 2007.

Anna Marie W/o Motchanathan, aged 56, residing at No.1, Ayyanar Koil Street, Pondicherry-13.

Complainant

v.

Dr. K. Sivadasan, M.D. (Ortho), aged about 47 years, having hospital under the name and style of Sri Sai Kirupa Hospital, Cuddalore Road (near Malai Malar Office), Pondicherry-1. Opposite Party

BEFORE:

THIRU A. ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

PRESIDENT.

TMT. SELLIAMMAL,

MEMBER.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT: M/s K. Parasuraman, S. Narasima Bala-murugan, S. Ganesh Gnanasambanthan, Advocates.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: M/s L. Sathish & Doraissamy, Advocates.

O R D E R

(By Tmt. Selliammal, Member.)

This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the “Act”) praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service, Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for pain and suffering and mental agony together with interest @ 12% p.a. and direct the opposite party to pay the same within thirty days of the order by the Forum.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant submits that on 16.05.2004 she met with an accident and immediately she was admitted in the opposite party’s private hospital on the same day at about 02.15 pm. The opposite party examined the complainant and on seeing the X-ray, he had diagnosed that she had posterior dislocation on her right elbow and she was treated by the opposite party. The opposite party dressed the arm with Plaster of Paris (POP) and prescribed tablets and medicines and discharged her on the same day and advised her to come for review after 15 days and Rs.1,350/- was charged for the treatment. She took medicines regularly as prescribed by the opposite party and within a week she had developed severe pain in the abdomen and also pain with irritation while passing urine and suffered due to urinary infection because of heavy dosage of medicines taken by her as prescribed by the opposite party. So, she was admitted in the Madhava Hospital on 24.05.2004 for taking treatment for urinary problem and there she stayed for four days and was given treatment for ‘acute pyelonephritis’ and was discharged on 27.05.2004 and Rs.7,500/- was charged for treatment. The complainant submits that without taking X-ray, she was put to physiotherapy treatment from 01.06.2004 to 04.06.2004. The complainant was again admitted in the opposite party’s hospital on 05.06.2004 as advised by the opposite party for review and he had removed the POP and then dressing was done. But the opposite party had failed to take X-ray after removing the POP to know the condition whether the closed reduction treatment given had improved her condition or not. In order to give further treatment, X-ray is essential, but the opposite party had neglected it and thus the opposite party was in gross negligence. She was admitted for physiotherapy and was given treatment twice daily with 1 kg. weight in her hand for five days and was discharged on 09.06.2004 and charged Rs.2,902/- for the treatment. The complainant was advised to continue the physiotherapy treatment daily in the opposite party’s hospital. As per the advice she took the physiotherapy treatment for one month till 08.04.2004 and Rs.50/- was charged per day. During the physiotherapy treatment she complained repeatedly to the opposite party that she was unable to do physiotherapy treatment due to severe pain in her right elbow and it was intolerable, but the opposite party without listening to her, directed his staff to give the treatment by using force. While undergoing the treatment, she had severe pain and suffering for nearly two months due to the wrong treatment given by the opposite party, the pain had multiplied into several times. Thus, the opposite party had failed and neglected to give her proper treatment and she suffered with heavy pain, which increased day by day and became unbearable for two months. So, she was constrained to go for a second opinion by another doctor and on 12.07.2004 Dr. Krishnakumar thoroughly examined and took X-ray which revealed post dislocation of right elbow and he gave the opinion that due to the close reduction treatment underwent the right elbow movement ROM was 30 to 40% only and the joint not congruous and the reduction incomplete. Further, the doctor opined that the complainant required open reduction and surgery for elbow movements and that elbow movements were unpredictable after surgery. The open reduction surgery ought to have been done immediately after the removal of the POP, but the opposite party was in gross negligence in not following the same and even failed to take X-ray after removing the POP to know the result of the treatment and to decide further course of treatment. Thus, the opposite party was grossly negligent of not taking due and adequate care while giving treatment to her in discharging his duty and the same resulted in permanent disability, much pain and suffering and mental agony to the complainant. On 13.07.2004
Dr. R.V. Krishnakumar gave opinion that the complainant required open reduction and the elbow movement unpredictable after surgery and so she had decided to go for a super specialty hospital for further management and on 15.07.2004 she got admitted at
Miot Hospital, Chennai. After diagnosis as fracture dislocation, on 17.07.2004 an open reduction surgery of right elbow with crossed ulnochumeral K wires and V.Y. Plasty of extensor right elbow was done and she was advised to come for review after one month. When she went for review, she was admitted in the hospital on 04.08.2004 and she was there for seven days and K wire removed and discharged on 10.08.2004 with advice to come for review. On 18.08.2004 she went for review and after examination, she was advised to take medicines and to attend review after two weeks and when she went for review on 03.09.2004 X-ray was taken on the right elbow, shoulder and cervical lateral and the doctor prescribed some medicines and asked her to come for review after one month. So, she went for review on 11.12.2004 to the Miot Hospital and after taking X-ray and examination of the complainant, the doctor gave opinion that the right elbow movements were 45 – 100 degrees and further recovery was possible. The complainant is permanently disabled to do her household duties and also her personal needs and is depending on a servant-maid for the past one year and she is paying a sum of Rs.1,300/- pm. as salary and thus she incurred a sum of Rs.15,600/- annually as expenditure. The complainant states that she had spent more than a sum of Rs.85,000/- towards medical expenses and is still taking treatment. She is suffering from pain, hardship and mental agony for the past one year and is permanently disabled due to the gross negligent act and insufficiency of care and service of the opposite party in giving adequate and proper treatment to her and so the opposite party is liable to pay damages and compensation. The complainant issued a legal notice dt.26.01.2005 too the opposite party and it was received and acknowledged by the opposite party on 31.01.2005 but there was no response. Hence this complaint.

3. The opposite party in his version denies all the allegations and averments of the complainant as false. The opposite party submits that he had taken a professional indemnity policy for doctors with the National Insurance Company at Pondicherry, bearing No.501500/46/05/8700000190 and it was alive when the complainant was treated by the opposite party. Hence, it is just and necessary that the insurance company has to be impleaded as one of the opposite parties. The opposite party admits that the complainant was admitted in his Shri Sai Kirupa Hospital on 16.05.2004, but not admitted immediately after the accident. She was referred by Sri Kirupa Nursing Home vide their letter dt.15.05.2004 brought by her on 16.05.2004 at 03.00 pm. with the complaint of posterior dislocation of right elbow. She was in severe pain and immediate steps were taken and there was complete loss of rotational movements in the elbow. X-rays were taken to confirm the diagnosis. A neuro-surgeon’s opinion was sought to rule out the head injury. Thereafter, the joint was reduced by the opposite party and an above elbow POP slab was applied and the procedure was done with only IV compose. Since the complainant had hypertension, injection fortwin was not given. As she complained of head injury, general anaesthesia was not given to her. After POP, her pain reduced substantially. A check X-ray was taken with POP and the reduction was found to be satisfactory. She was discharged with analgesics, which were only paracetamol, some vitamins and chymoral forte, which reduces tissue oedema. These are one of simplest combination of patented drugs used in any trauma management and cannot be termed as heavy dosages. In the overleaf of the prescription slips of the opposite party, it is stated that in the event of any complaint of pain, vomiting, swelling or other complications experienced during consumption of any drugs, the same must be immediately reported to the opposite party. But the complainant never complained of any such complications at any point of time. Thus, it is only a wild imagination of the complainant that the drugs given by the opposite party were over dosage. The opposite party also denies the allegation that she developed acute pyelonephritis because of medications given by the opposite party. He alleges that the complainant had suppressed the fact that she had renal stones, which were removed some ten years back by Dormia Basket and the acute pyelonephritis had nothing to do with the medicines prescribed by him and thus her complaint is not true. The opposite party submits that again the complainant came to his hospital on 05.06.2004 at 11.50 am. and he removed the POP and clinically examined her. Dr. Krishnakumar to whom the complainant had consulted, had observed that reduction was incomplete. No experienced orthopaedic surgeon will advice for open reduction immediately on removal of POP, especially when there are signs of improvements in joint junction because even the results of surgery are absolutely unpredictable and Dr. K. Krishnakumar also observed the same on 13.07.2004. For physiotherapy, generally the patients are not admitted as inpatient. In order to give extra care and attention, she was admitted as inpatient and was given proper exercises and closely monitored by the opposite party. The movement of elbow had considerably improved from a jog of movements on 16.05.2004 to about 60 of movements (from 30 of flexion to 90 of flexion), which means that there was significant reduction in the joints due to proper exercises. Thus, the opposite party had followed only the established medical practice of attempting to cure the patient by physiotherapy before surgery and that when the complainant had gone for second opinion to Dr. K. Krishnakumar, she had already undergone physiotherapy in his hospital for more than two weeks. Since the complainant had not showed the desired improvements, Dr. K. Krishnakumar might have suggested for open reduction prognosis. But he had not suggested that non-reduction in movements of the elbow was due to improper treatment of the opposite party. If she had reposed faith in him, he would have suggested for open reduction prognosis. But she herself had decided to take second opinion from another doctor. The complainant had stated that he had not responded to legal notice but at the same time she had filed his reply letter which shows that she has not come to the court with clean hands. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on his part and the complaint is to be dismissed.

4. In support of the respective cases, CWs.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.C1 to C19 were marked on the side of the complainant and RW1was examined and Ex.R1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.

5. The points for consideration are:

1) Whether the complainant is a 'consumer' or not?

2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

3) To what relief the parties are entitled?

6. POINT No.1:

The complainant was admitted in the opposite parties Sri Sai Kirupa Hospital on 16.05.2004 for posterior dislocation of right elbow. On that day, she paid a sum of Rs.1,350/- under Ex.C1 as charges. Since she had paid the consideration to the opposite party, she is a consumer under the Act and she is entitled to sue before this Forum.

This point is answered accordingly.

7. POINT No.2:

The complainant submits that on 16.05.2004 she met with an accident and was admitted to the opposite party’s hospital on that day at about 02.15 pm. This is proved by Ex.C1. The opposite party examined her by X-ray and he diagnosed as posterior dislocation on her right elbow and treated her and applied POP & dressing and prescribed tablets and medicines and the complainant was discharged on the same day and advised to come for review after 15 days and a sum of Rs.1,350/- was charged for the treatment is proved through Ex.C12 (4), (7), (8), (9) & (17). But the opposite party alleges that the complainant was referred to his hospital by Krishna Nursing Home vide their letter dt.15.05.2004 under Ex.R1(1) which was brought by her on 16.05.2004. The opposite party states that at that time when she joined his hospital, she had severe pain and immediate steps were taken by him as there was complete loss of rotational movements in the elbow. X-ray was taken to confirm the diagnosis and as she had head injury, neuro-surgeon’s opinion was sought. The complainant’s joint was reduced by the opposite party and an above elbow POP slab was applied with IV compose. As she is a hypertension patient, injection fortwin was given and as she had head injury, general anaesthesia was not given to her. A check X-ray was taken with POP and the reduction was found to be satisfactory. She was discharged with analgesics such as paracetamol, some vitamins and chymoral forte which reduce tissue oedema and they are the simplest combination of patented drugs. Exs.C1 & R1(1) to (8) prove that the opposite party had taken care and gave treatment to the complainant as referred above. The complaint and her evidence itself res ipso loquitor, i.e. speaks for itself, that as per the advice of the opposite party, she had not attended the opposite party’s hospital for review after 15 days. The complainant alleges that after one week of the treatment and taking the medicines regularly as prescribed by the opposite party, she had severe pain in the abdomen and also pain with irritation while passing urine and thus she had suffered from urinary infection by taking the heavy dosage of medicines prescribed by the opposite party. So, she was admitted on 24.05.2004 at Madhava Hospital, Pondicherry and there she was given treatment for acute pyelonephritis for four days and was discharged on 27.05.2004 as seen in Ex.C3 and she was charged Rs.7,500/- for the treatment and Ex.C14(1) to C22 are the medical bills. From 01.06.2004 to 04.06.2004 she was given physiotherapy treatment is proved through Ex.C13(3) to C13(6). Ex.C15(1) to C15(3) are the lab reports ofMadhava Hospital. Ex.C15(4) is the payment receipt of Madhava Hospital dt.24.05.2004. Ex.C15(5) is the lab report of the Madhava Hospital. Ex.C15(6) & Ex.C15(9) is the medical bill. Ex.C15(8) is the report of the Mother Physiotherapy Clinic, Pondicherry. Ex.C15(10) is the receipt given by Bussy X-rays. Ex.C17(1) to C17(2) are the medical bills prescribed by the opposite party. The complainant states that as per the advice of the opposite party to appear for review the complainant admitted to opposite party’s hospital on 05.06.2004. Ex.C5 is the medical bills issued by the opposite party. She alleges that on that day the opposite party had removed the POP dressing, but had failed and neglected to take X-ray after removing the dressing to know the condition of the complainant whether the closed reduction treatment had improved the condition of the complainant or not and for further treatment. Thus, opposite party had caused gross negligence in not taking the X-ray. The complainant contended that she was advised and given physiotherapy treatment for five days and was discharged on 09.06.2004. Ex.C12 to C12(18) are the medical bills issued by opposite party’s hospital. She took physiotherapy treatment for one month till 08.07.2004. Even though the complainant had informed the opposite party about her severe pain and suffering, she was forced to take the same. Ex.C13(11) is the bill for physiotherapy treatment. The complainant alleges that since the opposite party had failed and neglected to give proper treatment to her, she had severe pain and it increased from day to day and suffered it for two months. Ex.C17(3) to C17(7) are the opposite party’s medical prescriptions. So, she consulted Dr. R.V. Krishnakumar for second opinion on 12.07.2004. Ex.C4 is the consultation slip issued by Dr. R.V. Krishnakumar. He examined her and an X-ray Ex.C19 was taken which revealed ‘post dislocation of (R) elbow’ and the opinion of the doctor was that “due to the closed reduction treatment underwent, the right elbow movement ROM is 30 to 40 per cent only and the joint not congruous and reduction is incomplete”. The fact that he had opined that the complainant required open reduction and surgery for elbow and that movements was unpredictable after surgery is proved through Ex.C4. So, the complainant had decided to go for a super specialty hospital for further treatment and got admitted on 15.07.2004 at Miot Hospital at Chennai and the same is proved through Ex.C6(2) and it was diagnosed as persistent unreduced fracture dislocation of right elbow. Ex.C15(7) is the Miot Hospital miscellaneous requisition. On 17.07.2004 open reduction right elbow with crossed ulna humeral K-wires and V-Y Plasty of extensor right elbow was done and discharged on 27.07.2004. Ex.C6(1) is the discharge summary. When she went for review on 04.08.2004, she was admitted in the hospital for seven days and K-wire was removed and discharged on 10.08.2004 isproved through Ex.C7. Again she was advised to come for review on 18.08.2004 and she appeared and she was examined and advised to take medicine and to attend for review after two weeks as per Ex.C7(2). On 03.09.2004 X-ray was taken on the right elbow and medicines were prescribed and she was advised to attend for review after three months. When the complainant went for review on 11.12.2004 after taking X-ray and examination, the doctor opined that her elbow movements were 45 to 100 degrees and further recovery was possible is proved through Ex.C8. Ex.C16 is the lab report and Ex.C17(8) is the Miot medical bill. Ex.C9 is the advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.C10 is the reply by the opposite party to Ex.C9. Ex.C11(14) is the Miot Hospital bills. Ex.C12 are the bills issued by the opposite party’s hospital and Ex.C13 are the bills for physiotherapy. Ex.C14(18) are the Madhava Hospital admission and medical bills. The complainant alleges that as she was made permanently disabled due to the gross negligent act and insufficiency of care and service of the opposite party in giving adequate and proper treatment to her, she had suffered and had mental agony and hardship. She had also engaged a servant-maid to do her household duties and to do her personal duties and she had paid for it and also spent a sum ofRs.85,000/- towards medical and travelling expenses. Exs.C18(1) to C18(6) are the vehicle receipts. Ex.C19 is the X-ray copy taken as per the advise of
Dr. R.V. Krishnakumar.
The opposite party filed Ex.R1(24) which shows the admission and discharge and the treatment and medicines given to the complainant.

8. By going through the evidence of CW1, we come to know that she was admitted in the opposite party’s hospital for dislocation in her right elbow on 16.05.2004 and after the removal of POP she attended physiotherapy for about five days. It is clear from the words of the complainant that “after discharge I did not visit the opposite party and took physiotherapy with the opposite party. After that I consulted Dr. Krishnakumar but not taken physiotherapy treatment under him.” She also alleges that the opposite party had not taken X-rays prior to or after the removal of POP. But afterwards, she says that, the first X-ray taken on 16.05.2004 was with the hospital. So, it is quite clear that after her discharge, the complainant had not visited the doctor in order to intimate her condition in her elbow after the removal of POP, but she had undergone only physiotherapy treatment. As a doctor, the opposite party had instructed her to come for review, which she had failed to do so. It is printed at the backside of the prescriptions that if any complication arose, they advised the patients to approach the doctor immediately. As per this advice, if the complainant had really suffered, she would have intimated it to the opposite party. But she had not done so. Whereas, she had deposed that she had urinary infection due to the over dosage of medicines prescribed by the opposite party. But RW1 had not admitted it in his evidence. The complainant herself in her evidence stated that she had taken treatment for removal of stones from kidney one year before her treatment from the opposite party. Thus, the complainant had failed to prove the fact that urinary infection was caused only due to the medicines prescribed by the opposite party. She also alleges that the opposite party had failed to take X-ray after the removal of POP and thus caused gross negligence in not giving proper treatment and care which caused permanent disability and mental agony and sufferings to her for which the opposite party is liable to compensate for it. But the opposite party denies it. CW2 in his evidence stated that in Ex.C4 he had opined that the range of movements in the right elbow was 30o to 40o and she might require open reduction and the range of movements was unpredictable even after surgery. He also agrees that if the patient had a jog of movements before treatment and by treatment if it comes to 30o to 90o of lexion, it could be termed as an improvement in the rotational movement of that particular joint. “He also agrees that in the case of dislocation of elbow joint, the first line of management would be closed reduction and physiotherapy treatment. He also evidenced that if the patient does not do physiotherapy as instructed by the orthopaedician, there is a possibility of the reduction in the degree of rotational movements. “Further, he states that there is nothing wrong in the line of treatment given by an orthopaedic in case of dislocation of elbow joint, if he has done the closed reduction just followed by physiotherapy.” Even after consulting CW2, the complainant went to the opposite party’s hospital and then to Miot Hospital at Chennai. RW1 in his evidence admits about the dislocation and the closed reduction and physiotherapy treatment given to the complainant on 16.05.2004. But he says that he had taken the X-ray and after 16.05.2004, he had taken only X-ray and after that advised her to take X-ray, but he does not know whether she had taken it or not. She was given analgesics for pain and physiotherapy treatment. He diagnosed in Ex.R1 at page 24 that the complainant was suffering from post-traumatic stiffness and it is true that the movement of the elbow was from 30o to 90o and it was an improvement due to his treatment. He also admits that if there is no improvement, he had to go for open reduction. Without noticing the malunion, he had not advised for physiotherapy. He also states that the complainant only told him about her treatment at Miot Hospital. The opposite party submits that he was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there was no negligence on his part as he had taken sufficient care and service in giving adequate and proper treatment. RW1 in his evidence never states anywhere that the treatment adopted or given by the opposite party was a wrong procedure. Even in the Miot Hospital records nothing is mentioned about the error of the treatment given by the opposite party. Furthermore, the Miot Hospital doctor has not been examined as a witness to prove her claim. The complainant as per her complaint argued the same. No medical text is filed to substantiate her claim. No medical expert has also been examined to prove her case. The opposite party argued as per his version. The opposite party alleges that no suggestion is given by the expert that the drugs given had caused urinary infection and Ex.C3 does not reflect the cause for the disease. In Ex.C17 also nothing is mentioned. The opposite party’s learned counsel cited 2003 I CPJ (National Commission) in which it was held that medical negligence must be proved through expert opinion. In this case, no expert has been examined. The complainant argued that after the removal of POP, X-ray has to be taken and stated that it is the most recommended procedure which is in practice. But she had failed to prove it by way of text or through expert. CW2 in his evidence stated that the procedure followed is normal procedure followed in the case of dislocation. And, he never found fault with the opposite party for not taking X-ray after removal of POP and the opposite party had taken check X-ray. With regard to the chart filed by the complainant, the opposite party contended that the chart is for the children who are most seriously affected in childhood with posterior dislocation. The complainant should be treated without surgery. The opposite party’s learned counsel states that the onus of proof lies upon the complainant to prove her case. He had quoted1996 2 Supreme Court 36, 2001 CPJ National Commission p.18, 2000 Vol.3 National Commissionp.18 to prove his case.

9. Breach of duty in not taking the X-ray is to be proved by the complainant as observed in 2002 – CPJ National Commission page 157. The act of the opposite party caused damage is to be proved as observed in 1) 1998 I CPJ National Commission, 2) 2002 – CPJ National Commission, 3) 201 – CPJ National Commission. As per 2003 – 1 CPJ National Commission, the conservative method is followed and it is the discretion of the doctor to choose the treatment and as such there is no medical negligence.

10. We must decide whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with regard to the procedure adopted by him or not. Before deciding it, let us know what is medical negligence: “Medical negligence is defined as lack of reasonable care and skill or wilful negligence on the part of a doctor irrespective of acceptance of a patient, history taking, examination, diagnosis, investigation, treatment – medical or surgical, etc., resulting any injury or damage to the patient. Damage means physical, mental or functional injury to the patient. “The Hon’ble Supreme Court also put reliance on the following observations of House of Lords in the case of Bolam v. Frien Hospital Management Committee (1957) WLR 582 – (1957) 2 ALL England Law Reporter 118 (QBD), where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not in the test of the man on the top of a claphan omnibus because he has not got this special skill . . . . . . . .” “The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man, exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill, it is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art,” as observed in SCDRC page 638. The Bolam Test envisages the duty of care in the following terms:-

a) A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case;

b) A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give;

c) A duty of care in his administration of that treatment.

Bolam Test was accepted with approval in the following judgments:

1) Sidway v. Bethlam Royal Hospital & others – 643 All England Law Report (1985) 1 All ER;

2) Indian Medical Association v. S.V.P. Shantha & others (1995) 6 SCC 651; and

3) Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another (1005) SCC (Crl) 1369.

11. In order to prove medical negligence, the onus of proof lies on the person making such an allegation as it was held in (NCDRC) P.604. It is not for the doctor to prove that he acted with sufficient care but for the patient to establish that the doctor was negligent while treating the patient as observed in SCDRC, Page 665. In the case on hand, the complainant took treatment as an inpatient and then she was asked to come for review and advised to do physiotherapy daily. But without attending the doctor, the complainant continued the physiotherapy treatment. In between, she had approached RW2 for second opinion and he had suggested for open reduction. During this time, the complainant was an outpatient and so it was only her duty to approach the doctor to know about her condition and for further treatment from the opposite party. Thus, the opposite party had done his duty with proper care without any negligence on his part. She was also recommended to a neurologist by the opposite party. Even after going for the second opinion to another doctor RW2, the complainant approached the opposite party, who had given treatment to her without any hesitation. Since the complainant had faith on him only, she had approached him again and again. Doctors are having duty of care in deciding what treatment is to be given to the patient. It was observed in 2007 JMC National Commission, New Delhi:

“Two medical texts suggest two different methods of treatment – Doctors free to adopt one of the procedures – the treating doctors followed Bolam test having requisite skill – Appeal is dismissed.”

In the case on hand, RW2 had given evidence that the procedure followed by the opposite party is followed normally. But he never alleges that the treatment given by the opposite party is a wrong one. Thus, this point is not proved by the complainant. As the opposite party had followed the normal procedures, there is no medical negligence and he cannot beheld liable.

12. Medical negligence must be established and not presumed. In the absence of expert evidence on behalf of the complainant, no negligence or deficiency in service could be found against the affidavit filed by the doctors. It was held in Mrs. Kiran Balan Ront v. Christian Medical College and Hospital & Others – 2003(1) CPR 238 (NC) and in 2007 JMC 219 Madhyapradesh State Commissionand in 2006 JMC 98, the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore – No evidence of any expert that course of treatment was erroneous – No negligence or deficiency in service. The same view was held in 2007 MLR 457 National Commission, Delhi – No expert evidence that doctor was negligent and in 2007 MLR 490, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and in 2006 JMC 84 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed that medical negligence has to be proved by proper medical expert evidence and not merely on statement of patient. In the case on hand also to prove the case of the complainant no expert has been examined.

13. In 2007 MLR 760, Madhypradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal – Fracture – Close reduction Procedure – A five-year old child met with an accident and suffered compound fracture and supracondylar humerus left side with vascular deficit – Doctor did not close reduction with general anaesthesia – Restriction in movement, an expected phenomena – Procedure of close reduction well recognized by the Medical Science – No deficiency on the part of doctor in treating the child. In the case on hand also the opposite party had done the close reduction, the procedure used is recognized by the Medical Science. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, because the skill of doctors may differ from one doctor to another. But if they adopt the procedure which is administered by the medical world as per the treatment, then there is no negligence at all.

14. In 2007 JMC 174 – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi – First surgery of the complainant for asymptomatic for over three years was successful – No complaint at all from him when complainant visited for his regular treatment and he was advised to come again after five days – He did not turn up – Contributory negligence on his part – Right line of treatment provided by the hospital and orthopaedic surgeon – Complaint dismissed. In the case on hand also the complainant, after her first admission, was asked to come for review and to take physiotherapy treatment, but as per her evidence, she went for physiotherapy treatment, but she never met the doctor. So, the opposite party is not liable for it. Further, the complainant is an outpatient after her first admission. Right line of treatment is given by the opposite party is accepted and agreed by RW1 during the course of his evidence.

15. The learned counsel for the complainant argued in accordance with the complaint averments. She had not examined the expert to substantiate her case. She even failed to file necessary medical texts as proof for the case. They filed only one sheet of a chart, which was also not marked and it is also not a full text. Furthermore, as alleged by the opposite party, the complainant had filed the plan for the supracondylar treatment which is the treatment given for the childhood is clearly proved through 2007 MLR 760 – Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, the facts of which have already been stated above. So, in no way the complainant has established her case. The opposite party has proved that he had taken proper care and had given proper treatment and there is no breach in his service as he had followed the conventional method which is the normal one and accepted by the medical world as per the medical text. No material has been brought on record to state that the opposite party is not a qualified surgeon or selection of treatment or its administration was not as per practice followed by large number of professionals in such cases. It is settled by a number of decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that while treating a patient, if the doctor in charge adopts the conventional method and manner of treatment as prescribed by text and followed by specialists of the line and during the treatment even if the patient does not respond and death takes place, the doctor attending the patient cannot be accused of any negligence or deficiency in service as it was held in Master Sabam Kashyap v. Dr. (Mrs) Sarala Madhan – 1 (1999) CPJ 505. Hence, the opposite party had proved his case through his evidence and documents filed by him. Further, Ex.C19 shows how the right elbow of the complainant is affected and rectified. Due to the above said reasons, the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant, as there is no deficiency in service on his part.

The point is answered accordingly.

16. POINT No.3:

Since Point No.2 is answered in favour of the opposite party, this point is also answered in favour of the opposite party.

17. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dated at Pondicherry on this the 12th day of November, 2007.

(A. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(T. SELLIAMMAL)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESSES:

CW1 – Annamarie (complainant)

CW2 – Dr. Krishnakumar

OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESSES:

RW1 – Dr. K. Sivadasan, (Opposite party).

COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

Ex.C1 – 16.05.2004 – Medical bill by Sri Sai Kirupa Hospital.

Ex.C2 – 09.06.2004 – Discharge summary of Annamarie.

Ex.C3 – 24.05.2004 – Discharge summary of Madhava Hospital.

Ex.C4 – 12.07.2004 – Prescription of Dr. R.V. Krishnakumar.

Ex.C5 – 05.06.2004 – Medical bill by Sri Sai Kirupa Hospital.

Ex.C6 – 27.07.2004 – Discharge summary by Miot Hospital.

Ex.C7 – 04.08.2004 – Discharge summary by Miot Hospital.

Ex.C8 – 11.12.2004 – Certificate by Miot Hospital.

Ex.C9 – 26.01.2005 – Advocate notice issued by complainant to opposite party.

Ex.C10- 24.02.2005 – Reply by Sri Sai Kirupa Hospital.

Ex.C11- (series) - Cash bills by Miot Hospital (14 Nos).

Ex.C12- (series) - Cash bills for purchase of medicines and lab charges (18 Nos.)

Ex.C13- (series) - Medical Bills of Sai Kirupa Hospital (11 Nos.)

Ex.C14- (series) - Medical Bills of Madhava Hospital (18 Nos.)

Ex.C15- (series) - Medical bills of Madhava Hospital (10 Nos.)

Ex.C16- 15.07.2004 – Lab report of Miot Hospital.

Ex.C17- (series) - Prescriptions of complainant (8 Nos.)

Ex.C18- (series) - Recipes (6 Nos.).

Ex.C19- 12.07.2004 – X-ray.

OPPOSITE PARTY’S EXHIBIT:

Ex.R1 – 15.05.2004 – Case-sheet pertaining to complainant produced by RW1.

(A. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(T. SELLIAMMAL)

MEMBER

Courtesy_

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/35594CC.35-06.Medical%20neg.html


No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer

This Blog Spot is meant for publishing landmark judgments pronounced by the Consumer forum, Consumer State Commission, Consumer National Commission, Supreme Court as we collected from the renowned Dailies, Magazines, etc., so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. As such the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Original Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy/Sources". Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.