State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.V.Ravindranath, Urologist & Laser ... vs D.Gunaraj, S/O.C.Deivanayagam, Tnhb ... on 4 October, 2011
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member, Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., Member. F.A.No. 572/2010 [Against order in C.C.No.364/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai] TUESDAY, THE 4th DAY OF OCTOBER 2011. Dr.V.Ravindranath, Urologist & Laser Surgeon, Rajeev Hospital, No.47, Anna Nagar, Madurai 625 020. .. Appellant/opposite party. /Vs/ D.Gunaraj, S/o.C.Deivanayagam, TNHB Colony, Sector-6, Koodal Pudur, Madurai 8. .. Respondent/complainant The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellants side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for the Appellant/opposite party : Dr.B.Cheran, Advocate. Counsel for Respondent/ complainant : Absent. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming for direction to pay Rs.3 lakhs as compensation, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the removal of stent on 2.11.05 and for future medical expenses and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
3. The complainant, a tailor in Tiruppur, was suffering due to deposit of stone in both side kidneys. He went to the opposite partys hospital and as per his advice he was admitted as inpatient on 26.3.2003 and he underwent an operation on the left side kidney and the stone was removed on 27.3.03 and after post operative care he was discharged on 5.4.03. The complainant has paid Rs.27,000/- as fees and other charges to the opposite party.
The complainant was again admitted in the opposite partys hospital on 21.7.03 and on 22.7.03 the opposite party performed operation in the right side kidney for removal of stone for which complainant spent Rs.27,000/-. In the operation the opposite party has removed the stone (calculus) from the kidney and inserted a tube through the penis for the proper drain of urine from the kidney. The complainant was discharged on 31.7.03 but the opposite party did not give any instructions to remove the tube which was inserted at the time of 2nd operation. In the month of February 2004 due to severe pain felt in the right side stomach the complainant went to the opposite partys hospital and was admitted for 4 1/s hours and injected a sedation injection for the removal of the tube.
After awakening from the sedation the opposite party told him that he had removed the entire tube.
4. On 3.8.2005 when the complainant went to the opposite partys hospital with severe pain, he examined him and simply told him that a small piece of tube was present inside. The complainant decided to take further course of treatment with some other doctors and requested him to give case sheet, discharge summary for his treatment from February 2004 to till date. The opposite party refused to provide the treatment particulars of the case sheet and discharge summary. On 7.8.05 due to severe pain in his abdomen and blood leakage in his penis when the complainant, went to D.S.K.Hospital in Tiruppur and as per the doctors advice he had taken X-ray and the doctor verified the X-ray thoroughly and told him that the tube inserted at the time of 2nd operation fell into the urinary bladder and for that reason this complainant was suffering from abdomen pain and blood leakage. Meanwhile on 21.10.05 the complainant went to Sri Abirami Hospital at Coimbatore.
They took X-Ray and Scan and has confirmed the presence of stent in the urinary bladder. He spent Rs.1000/- for his diagnose. He decided to remove the tube with the help of some other doctors.
In this matter the complainant has sent notice to the opposite party on 27.9.05. The opposite party has received the notice on 28.9.05 and did not send any reply. In spite of repeated demands made by the complainant the opposite party refused to rectify his own defects. The careless, negligent, willful and wanton acts of the opposite party gave irreparable pain, sufferings, mental agony loss etc. to the complainant. On 2.11.2005 due to intolerable pain and sufferings he was admitted in the Sri Abirami Hospitals at Coimbatore at about 2 p.m. the doctors conducted the surgery and removed the tube. In the removed stent there was deposit of salt. As such the opposite party should be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the removal of stent on 2.11.2005 and for future medical expenses and to pay rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.
5. The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant in their written version and admitted that the complainant was given treatment for removal of kidney stone in both the kidneys and stent was fixed on the right side kidney for draining of urine on 22.7.03 and was discharged on 31.7.03 with advise to come after two weeks and he came only on 5.9.03 for removal of stent which was migrated into right uriter instead of coming after 2 weeks he came after 5 weeks and after that he came only after 5 months on 13.2.2004 with complaints of painful urination and after that he was advised urithroscopy for which he came only on 3.8.05 after 1 years.
The tube fixed became calcified and got admitted on 4.8.05 and after urethroscopy the stent was pulled out however the last bit of few centimeter got stuck because of calcification and concretion. It was decided to make another try after few days and was discharged on 8.8.05 to come back on 11.8.05 for removal of balance stent. On 11.8.05 he was not willing for removal further he gone for removal with some other doctor on 2.11.05. Hence there was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party. Complaint liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of both sides arguments, averments and contentions the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party come forward with this appeal and contended that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without going into the details of the opposite partys case. In the appeal proceedings the respondent/complainant remained absent and in the absence of the complainant on the basis of materials and records placed before this Commission and upon hearing the arguments of appellants side the order being order passed on merits. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant had treatment for his both kidneys stones on the right and left kidneys from 2002 to 7.8.05. It is also admitted during 2003 and the left side kidney for drainage of urine the stent tube was fixed and subsequently removed and as well as the same type of stent tube was fixed while at the time of removal of stone in the right side kidney during the period on 2.7.2003 and he was discharged on 31.7.2003 with a tube stent and after that it is the case of the complainant during the year 2005 he got developed paid and for removal of the stent he approached the opposite party. Opposite party admitted that on 5.9.2003 Sistoscopy was done and found the stent was migrated in to right uritor.
So he was advised to come after two weeks. But he came only after 5 weeks. These details are available with the case sheet of opposite party which is marked as Exhibit B1 with the relevant date entries and because of the late visit of the complainant for review is said to be the possibility of cause of migration of stent in to the uritor.
8. However it is stated subsequently on 13.2.2004 the complainant came in complaint was painful urination and he was advised for uritroscopy and after that he came on 3.8.05. For nearly after 1 years he was not cared to visit the doctor during that period naturally there may not be any case records as alleged by the appellant.
Because of this long duration the calcification of stent was happened and in spite of that on 4.8.05 there was an attempt made to remove the tubes by pulling out and thereby a few centimeters got stuck due to the cause of calcification and concretion. Hence Further vigorous pulling was abanded on that day for fear of uritary tear. This cannot be brushed aside in view of the condition of the patients treatment.
Only after that the complainant went to the other doctor as found in the complaint with Abirami Hospital and got removal of the remaining stent on 2.11.05 as per Exhibit A12. It is the case of the opposite party after removal of major portion of the stent on 4.8.2005 he was advised to come for after few days later after discharge on 8.8.05 to come on 11.8.05. But on 11.8.05 he came and not willing for removal. From these details it is clear it cannot be said that only due to the lack of opposite partys relectness or carelessness. The alleged negligence could have been caused but on the part of complainant also it could have been happened as he has not followed the advise given by the opposite party doctor and while considering the dates of events furnished by the appellant in the written version it is stated as below would also prove the contention of opposite party.
1. Patient know by scan that he had stones in both ureters and Resultant obstruction 29.11.2002
2. He attends the opposite party hospital on 26.3.03 4 months of Postponment
3. Discharged on 5.4.03 with advice for stent 20.4.03 Removal after 2 weeks
4. Willing for stent removal only on 28.6.03 2 months Postponement.
5. Gets admitted for Right side stone removal 21.7.03 8 months (Because of pain) postponement
6. Discharged on 31.7.03 with advice for stent 14.8.2003 removal after two weeks
7. Comes for review 5.9.03 3 weeks Postponement
8. Complainant was advised procedure under anaesthesia 8.9.03
9. Comes for review (Because of dysuria and haematuria) 13.2.04 5 months Postponement
10. Finally subjects to the procedure 4.8.05 2 years Postponement
11. Bit of stent to be removed on 11.8.2005
12. Presents himself to another doctor on 2.11.05 3months Postponement
9. The District Forum after going through all the aspects came to the conclusion by saying that it is the duty of the opposite party to trace the complainant in order to secure him for continuation of removal of part of the stent tube already left with the body as a foreign body in order to safeguard the interest of the patient and this view may not be a correct one as the duty not only cast upon the doctor as also csst on the patient to abide and to follow the instructions and directions given by the doctor regarding the follow up treatment to have the effective and better healing and in this case it is also pointed out and proved by the opposite party, the complainant has not followed the instructions scrupulously regarding the treatment in this matter. It is also stated by the doctor the complainant was not following the schedules perhaps may be due to want money and this may not be ignored as in the Exhibit B1 case sheet for various dates entries are found regarding the due amount payable by the complainant.
10. In those circumstances since because of the remaining portion of the tube stent was removed by other medical practitioner in other hospital it cannot be construed that the opposite party was carelessness and negligent in performing his duties for the treatment because of it is proved in performing his duties for the treatment it is proved from the averments of the appellant and that even after pulling out of the major portion of the stent fairly admitted that certain portion of centimeters of tube was left out in the uritor and if it is tried to pull out immediately, it might have been caused some fear and advised the complainant to come after 3 days for second try, for which the complainant not complied with. But undergone further treatment for the same with the Abirami Hospital. Nowhere in the case sheet of Abirami Hospital as Exhibit A12 it is mentioned that due to the wrong treatment of the opposite party, or negligent treatment had the complainant sufferings or pain continued.
11. In those circumstances we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed as meritorious and the complaint to be dismissed by setting aside the order of the District Forum.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum, Madurai in C.C.No.364/2005 dated 14.05.2010 and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs in this appeal.
13. The Registry is directed to hand over the Fixed Deposit Receipt made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant, duly discharged.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka//Medl.