State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohd. Ashfaq vs Kaba Hospital on 11 August, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. C.C. 25 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Ashfaq s/o. Mohd. Ibrahim Age: 26 years, Pvt. Service H.No. 18-8-187/33, Near Midhani RTC Bus Depot Indiranagar, Phisalbanda Hyderabad. *** Complainant. And 1) Kaaba Hospital H. No. 10-5-64/5/A Ahmed Nagar, Masabtank Hyderabad. Rep. by Dr. Mohammad Taher Ali 2) Dr. Shehla Tahar Ali W/o. Dr. Mohammad Taher Ali H. No. 10-5-64/5/A Ahmed Nagar, Masabtank Hyderabad. 3) Dr. Lateef Ahmed H. No. 10-5-64/5/A Ahmed Nagar, Masabtank Hyderabad. *** Opposite Parties. Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. M. A. Bari Counsel for the Ops. M/s. V. Gourishankara Rao CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER & SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN ORAL ORDER:
(Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.) ***
1) This is a complaint filed claiming compensation of Rs. 1 crore towards medical negligence for not exercising reasonable care and skill while conducting circumcision operation.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that his son Mohd. Affan was born on 11.2.2009. After he became 15 days old he was taken to the opposite party hospital for circumcision operation. Accordingly Ops 2 & 3 after collecting a sum of Rs. 500/- towards fee operated the boy for circumcision. After surgery it was found that glans was bleeding. When questioned Op3 stated that there nothing abnormal and asked to bring him on the next day. On the next day it was found that there was a deep cut injury between the basic organ and testicles. It was found that glans has become ecymosed and turned blackish. On 4.3.2009 Op3 himself took the boy to Cure-Well hospital for consultation and had discussions with a senior doctor. On 5.3.2009 his condition became serious. There was no urination. On advise he was taken to Niloufer hospital where the boy was admitted as an in-patient. It was noticed that glans penis was affected with gangrene. The passage of urine was diverted by a minor operation. After few days the gangrene affected the male organ, sloughed off, leaving a hole for passage of urine. All this was due to non-exercise of reasonable care and skill resulting in permanent disability. The separated portion of the male organ was preserved by the doctors in a bottle and handed over to them. He learnt that in order to stop excessive bleeding after circumcision they have applied electric treatment which has affected the entire organ and flow of blood in it resulting in development of gangrene. Alleging deficiency in service and negligence he claimed a sum of Rs. 1 crore.
3) Opposite Parties 1 & 2 filed written version resisting the case. The complainant being not the patient had no locus standi to file the complaint. It is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as the claim was more than Rs. 1 crore together with interest and costs. He did not produce any expert opinion, contrary to the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Martin F. DSouza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq reported in I (2009) CPJ 32 SC while registering the complaint. Several complicated questions of fact and law are involved and therefore it is a fit case to be tried by a civil court. Ops 1 & 2 are qualified and competent doctors in Op1 hospital. They did not perform any circumcision operation at any point of time. More over Op2 never conducted any circumcision operation in her entire professional career. Op3 left Op1 hospital, and his address is not known. On 26.2.2009 a minor boy was brought with a complaint of infection of circumcision wounds. The prescription chit dt. 26.2.2009 was issued by Op3 reveals the above fact. It looks as though he got the circumcision operation done through a local quack. When infection was developed Op3 prescribed antibiotics and anti inflammatory drugs like Taxim drops and Bebigesic syrup. He was brought again on 2.3.2009.
However, it was found that infection was not controlled.
Op3 had changed the drugs. He prescribed injection Monocef 125 mg. Syrup Ibugesic plus and Gentamycin drops for local application. Again for the last time the boy was brought on 5.3.2009. Op2 examined the patient and noticed slight dis-coloration of the penis.
On that he advised some medicines and suggested to get the child admitted in the hospital so that he could refer to a Pediatric Surgeon. However he refused to admit the child, however they took him away. It was not known as to what happened to the child and where the treatment was taken. They have taken reasonable care and exhibited necessary skill in treating the patient. Had he been admitted in the hospital similar treatment could be given as was done in Niloufer hospital. They reiterated that the boy was brought with infection after circumcision on 26.2.2009. Since it was done outside the hospital it was not liable for such a operation and infection. The allegation that there was bleeding for 24 hours and if that were to be true it would have been fatal. There was no proof that there was deep cut in between the base of the organ and the testicles. The allegation that glans became ecchymosed and turned blackish is not true. The allegation that Op3 took him to Cure-Well hospital is not true. When the boy was brought on 5.3.2009 there was no complaint of urination problem. When they found Echymosis they sought the consultation of Pediatric surgeon.
However, the complainant did not agree. Therefore the case sheet that was opened could not be pursued. The complainant has not followed the instructions given by them. The drugs that were prescribed by Op3 were not improper. The principle of Res ipsa loquitur has no application. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the opposite parties filed their affidavit evidence and examined Dr. Athar Hussain and filed Exs. B1 to B3.
5) The points that arise for consideration are :
I. Whether the opposite parties had conducted circumcision operation in their clinic leading to infection?
II.
Whether there was any negligence or deficiency in service in treating the patient?
III.
To what relief?
6) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants son Mohd. Affan was born on 11.2.2009. While the complainant asserts that the opposite parties had conducted circumcision on 26.2.2009 the opposite parties allege that they never conducted circumcision. When the boy was brought to their clinic on 26.2.2009 he was already circumcised through a local quack, and on that they found there was an infection, and therefore they prescribed medicines. The moot point is whether Ops 1 & 2 had conducted circumcision on the minor boy. It is an undisputed fact that Mohd. Affan the child was 15 days old when according to the complainant this circumcision was conducted. Ex.
A2 is the prescription chit issued by Op hospital dt. 26.2.2009 wherein there was a mention complaint of circumcision. It is not a case where they have conducted circumcision on 26.2.2009. The prescription chits Exs. A2 to A4 were issued disclosing the medicines that were prescribed by them. The opposite parties allege that on 5.3.2009 they found that gangrene was set in glans penis. They advised to admit him and treat him in the hospital. In the coloum previous illness there was categorical mention circumcision was done 8 days back. It was mentioned on examination Glans penis gangerous. Entire skin on the shaft gangerous. Urethra menotic and sloughed.
Urine coming out on pressure which was blocked with complaint of slough.
7) In the discharge card the doctors at Niloufer hospital mentioned Glans peniss sloughed off only penile shaft. Present passing urine from urethra end. SPC removed. There was no mention that penis was removed. Though it was mentioned in the complaint that the separated portion of the male organ was preserved by the doctors in a bottle and handed over to them. they did not choose to file the bottle in order to confirm that the very penis was removed.
8) No prescription whatsoever was filed in order to show that circumcision was done on 26.2.2009. The prescriptions on the other hand show that circumcision was conducted some where. The opposite parties assert that it could have been done through local quack and only after it was infected he was brought to them on 26.2.2009. In order to prove the said fact the opposite parties filed Exs. B1 & B2 out patient register. The said records do not disclose that minor operation was conducted to the boy in the hospital on the said dates.
9) The complainant is obviously in a misconception that the boy has lost his gentile in view of the fact that his glans penis was removed. When the doctor on oath denied that entire penis was removed and asserted that only glans penis was sloughed off the penis was very much present, the complainant for the reasons best known to him in the light of evidence of doctor, did not examine any of the doctors at Niloufer, to state that by virtue of infection and later sloughing off glans penis, he lost the very penis. The complainant was unable to prove that the opposite parties had conducted the circumcision operation.
10) The learned counsel for the complainant contended that in Ex. A2 there was a mention O/D suggesting that operation was done. The opposite party doctor has mentioned that O/D does not denote that it was operation done, on the other hand shows Oral drops of Taxmim. B/o. means twice a day. Taxim is an antibiotic drug. Syrup Bebigesic is an anti-inflammatory drug and pain relieving drug. Exs. A3 & A4 reveal that antibiotic injection Monocef 125 mg an anti flammatory and pain reliever was prescribed. Syrup Ibugesic plus and Gentamycin ear drops were prescribed. Gentamycin was prescribed for local application. Therefore the opposite parties had created the record cannot be up-held in view of the fact that the complainant had mis-read the very prescription chits issued by the opposite parties . The allegation of negligence while conducting the operation is without any basis.
11) At the cost of repetition, we may state that even at the time when he was brought to the hospital the boy was infected. In regard to circumcision he could not explain how the doctors could know that there was infection if the circumcision was conducted in the very same hospital on the very same day. Ex. B3 would not show that circumcision was done at their hospital. Since the complainant could not prove that Ops conducted the operation in their hospital the question of negligence will not arise. Even otherwise they have administered requisite medicines in order to contain the gangrene that was set in . Later he was shifted to Niloufer hospital where glean penis was sloughed off. The complainant ought to have examined the doctors from Niloufer hospital in order to prove that the very penis was removed. He did not examine any of the doctors to prove that penis was removed as claimed by him in his complaint. It is not known why the separated portion which was handed over by the opposite parties was not produced before this Commission. Considering all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant could not prove that there was any negligence on the part of opposite parties.
12) In the result the complaint is dismissed. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) ________________________________ MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for Complainant: None Witness examined for opposite parties: Dr. Athar Hussain Documents marked for complainant:
Ex A-1 Birth certificate of minor boy Mohd. Affan dt. 11.2.2009.
Ex A-2 Prescription slip of Ops dt. 26.2.2009.
Ex A -3 Prescription slip of Ops dt. 2.3.2009.
Ex A-4 Prescription slip of Ops dt. 5.3.2009 Ex A-5 copy of case sheet issued by Niloufer Hospital dt. 5.3.2009 Ex A-6 Discharge card issued by Niloufer Hospital dt. 1.4.2009 Ex A-7 Police complaint given to Humayun Nagar P.S. against Ops dt. 3.5.2009.
Documents marked for Opposite Parties:
Ex. B1 Minor Operation register of Op hospital from 1.1.2009 to 5.3.2009 Ex. B2 Out Patient register of Op hospital from 24.1.2009 to 24.3.2009 Ex. B3 Case Sheet.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) ________________________________ MEMBER 11/08/2011 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.