State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.J.Anandakumar, 71/34, Canal Bank ... vs 1.Sundaram Medical Foundation, ... on 8 February, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.SAMBANDAM MEMBER F.A.NO.48/2010 (As against the order in CC.No.204/2006 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (North) DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
1. J.Ananda Kumar,
2. J.Nanda Kumar,
3. T.D.Mekala,
4. R.Sasikala,
5. R.Mythili All are residing at No.71/34, Canal Bank Road, M/s.A.Rajendrakumar East CIT Nagar, Chennai 600 035. Counsel for Appellants / Complainants
-vs-
1. Sundaram Medical Foundation Dr.Rangarajan Memorial Hospital, Rep. by its Chairman/Managing Director, Shanti Colony, 4th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.
2. Dr.P.V.Jaya Shankar, C/o.Sundaram Medical Foundation Dr.Rangarajan Memorial Hospital, Rep by its Chairman / Managing Director, M/s.Sampath Shanti Colony, 4th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Counsel for Chennai 600 040.
Respondents / Opposite parties The Appellants as the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,99,834/- towards expenditure incurred for hospitalization and medicines and to pay Rs.50,000/- as traveling and treatment during hospitalization and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation towards damages for loss incurred by the complainants family and to award costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellants / complainants to set aside the order of the District forum in CC.204/2006 dated 17.9.2009.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.1.2013, Upon hearing the arguments on either sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainants are the appellants.
2. The complainants father one Jaganathan was admitted for surgery on 9.6.2002 at the first opposite partys Hospital after earlier treatment on 7.6.2002 at Kumbakonam for the fracture. The second opposite party performed surgery on him for fixing with nailing the bone. The second surgery was also performed on 15.06.2002, but the surgical wound was infected due to negligent of the hospital authorities. As MRSA infection occurred post operatively and subsequently on 9.8.2003 the complainants father died due to Septicemia caused by unhealed wound. Hence, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum which is dismissed by observing that the complainants have failed to prove their case.
3. Against the impugned order the unsuccessful complainants have come forward with this appeal and contended that the District Forum failed to look into the prospective details of the complaint and events relating to the treatment given only because of the negligent on the part of the opposite party the infection was caused and no reasonable skill and standard card had been exercised by the respondents in performing the surgery to the Late.K.Jaganathan.
4. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents for hospital argued that the patient was properly treated and since in the first surgery as the nail fixing and the bone have not become set right, the second surgery was immediately performed and in the second surgery it was found that the proximal fragment was abducted as a result of osteoporosis which was leading to misalignment of the fracture. Hence, second procedure was adopted by bone grafting with criclage wiring was done. Further the patient was attended by all specialties including infectious disease consultant Dr.Ram Gopal Krishnan and Plastic surgeon V.B.N.Murthy and after consultation of Orthopatic consultant Dr.Govardhan the patient was discharged on 26.8.2002 and again admitted on 7.4.2003 with cellulites of left foot and ankle. On 8.4.2003 Dr.Ram gopal Krishnan found open wound with blisters over the foot and after treatment on 21.4.2003 suggested foot and hardware removal for the left thigh. The Nephrologist who diagnosed on 10.4.2003 the patient had developed on renal failure and academia in ICU and suggested for the procedure of Haemodialysis. On 28.4.2003 the patient complaint of pain and ulcer over scrotum, poor hygiene in groin which the implant was removed and external fixator and wound debridement was done and discharged on 7.5.2003 and further removal of external fixator on 24.06.2003 the patient was discharged on 3.7.2003 with no open wound was found.
Patient was already suffering from various complications and there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
5. We have carefully considered both sides submissions and gone through the materials placed before us we find that the complainants father Jaganathan got admitted for the injuries in left arm and thigh at Kumbakonam subsequently at the opposite party hospital he had undergone surgeries and treatment from 9.6.2002 to 15.06.2002 after the second operation on 15.06.2002 the patient was infected with MRSA infection and thereafter once again he had treatment from 29.07.2002 to 26.08.2002 and after that from 7.4.2003 to 7.5.2003 and again 24.06.2003 to 2.7.2003 and there after he died on 9.8.2003. The appellant contended that the complainants father died because of negligence on the part of the opposite parties while giving treatment after post operative care which gave MRSA infection due to which he died. The opposite parties contended that they have given best treatment and the recovery of patient depends upon various aspects and the complainants father at the time of admission was aged about 69 years having medical complications of (1) Rheumatoid Arthritis since 1997,(2) Benign prostate hypertrophy, (3) Intestinal Lung disease since 1997, (4) Cataract, (5) Pulmonary Tuberclosis, (6) Skin infection and renal problems since 2003 and prolonged use of steroids by the deceased harbouring endogenous MRSA which is very high in such cases and in this case use of such steroids for a long time also a cause of death alleged. Regarding these contentions there are no contra contentions or evidence by the complainants to prove that the death caused only because of surgical infection which lead to septicemia, only because of post operative not cured by proper management by the opposite parties. The opposite parties relied upon the rulings of the Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 (2) CTC 252 in the case of Martin F.D.Souza vs- Mohd.Ishfaq in which it is held that To produced medical experts evidence to prove the case. Further the opposite parties have relied upon the ruling reported in 2010 (2) CTC 461 in the case of Kusum Sharma & Others vs- Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others in which it is held as follows Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Sections 2 (1) (g) & 21-Deficiency in service-Medical negligence-Complainants husband underwent surgical operation for removal of abdominal tumor and subsequently died-Test revealed that tumor was found to be malignant and he died on account of pyogenic meningitis-Complainant attributed negligence on Doctor and sought compensation-She further claimed that surgical approach adopted by Doctor is incorrect-Doctor ought to have adopted Posterior approach and not Anterior approach-Medical texts and evidences show Anterior approach is preferable-Complainant did not prove that Posterior approach is only possible approach-Doctors in complicated cases have to take chance even if rate of survival is low-Courts have to be extremely careful to ensure that unnecessarily professionals are not harassed so that they will be able to perform duty without fear-complainant had not made out a case of negligence-Order of National Commission dismissing complaint, held justified. Further they also relied other judgments reported in III (2000) CPJ 283, (2010) 2 MLJ 1168 to point out that the medical practitioner is only required to exercise reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and which is duly exercised in this case. Even though the appellants have relied upon the rulings reported in I (2007) CPJ 418 Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in the case of V.Shanbhag (DR) vs- Shankar & Anr pointed out the principle of Res ipsa loquitur and failure to produce hospital records in take adverse inference. It is not applicable in the case on hand as the opposite parties have already submitted Ex.B1 and B2 regarding the earlier treatment and explained the incidents relating to the treatment which are acceptable and it is on the part of the complainant to prove their case established only because of negligence on the part of the opposite parties which alone caused MRSA infection let to septicemia against with the opposite parties have attributed various causes for causing such infection which is to be acceptable since the patient was 69 years at the time of admission at the opposite parties hospital on 9.6.2002 and nearly more than one year after the first treatment he died on 9.8.2003 would go to establish that the death may not be due to cause of infection of MRSA alone or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, we find that the District Forum considered all the relevant points from the materials placed before it and come to proper conclusion by dismissing the complaint with which there is no need for any interference by way of appeal by this commission. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum Chennai (North) in CC.No.204/2006 dated 17.9.2009.
No order as to costs in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI MEMBER PJM INDEX ; YES / NO VL/D;PJM/ORDERS