State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N. Essakki, S/O.Nainar, 24/82 ... vs Dr.Tmt.R.Nambinachiyar, Mbbs., 1, ... on 8 September, 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. 158/2008 [Against order in C.C.No.26/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Tirunelveli] THURSDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011. N. Essakki, S/o.Nainar, 24/82 Valajapettai North Street, Tachanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli. .. Appellant/Complainant /Vs/ Dr.Tmt.R.Nambinachiyar, MBBS., 1, Municipal Complex, Town Road, Tachanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli. .. Respondent/Opposite party The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellant 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 : M/s. C.T.Mohan, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. R.Venkata Varathan, Advocate. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The Complainant/appellant filed a complaint against the opposite party for the negligence on the part of the opposite party in giving treatment to the complainants wife Subbulakshmi who subsequently died and thereby claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings and also for medical expenses with costs.
3. Complainants wife on 16.9.2003 at about 8 p.m was given treatment by the opposite party for her ailment. The opposite party had not properly examined his wife negligently without knowing what is the disease under which his wife was suffering administered an injection to her and after lapse of two hours, the complainants wife felt non availability of sensitive and feeling and once again complainant was taken to the opposite partys house and she refused to give further treatment and she was taken to the Government Hospital at Tirunelveli on the recommendation letter given by the opposite party and in the Government hospital she was advised to take a scan by spending an amount of Rs.5,750/- and because of the wrong treatment and the injection given due to reaction of medicine resulted in deterioration of the muscles, hip and her health and loss of sense in limbs. She was given treatment for 22 days at the Governments hospital as an inpatient and as a treatment failed was discharged and she died on 14.3.2004. The complainant spent Rs.4,00,000/- for giving treatment by one another doctor name Prakash. Because of the expense complainant was forced to sell his property for the expenses. Hence he has filed a complaint.
4. The opposite party denied the allegations in the written version and stated that the complainants wife came with neighbour lady and another girl of her relationship on 16.9.03 with the complaints of back pain, sholder pain, fever and hip pain. After careful diagnose she was given an injection Overran and advised for blood test, urine test, X-ray test and requested to come back after the tests were taken. But she did not turn up with the results of the tests. She has not paid any amount towards her treatment. Hence she is not a consumer. On 17.9.03 complainant brought his wife and stated that he had not taken any examinations or test as required by the opposite party and thereby the opposite party on seeing the infection caused on the vertebra, the deterioration function of two legs she advised to undergo treatment as inpatient and thereby she gave a recommendation letter to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital as the complainant was not in a position to give treatment for his wife in private hospital and is the recommendation letter itself the opposite party clearly mentioned the symptoms of disease known as paraplegia for evaluation.
The opposite party denied because of the reaction caused to the patient due to the injection administered the alleged loss of sense and she was in the Government Hospital for 22 days even after that she was not to be cured and thereby the opposite party has not committed any negligence or deficiency of service.
5. On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party while giving injection to the patient for her ailment and dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come forward with this appeal and among other things it is contended that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint.
7. The appeal is taken up for final hearing the appellant has not come forward to represent the appeal either by himself or through the counsel on record. Hence the order is being passed on merits on the basis of materials placed before this Commission and after hearing the respondent side arguments. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that due to negligence on the part of the opposite party, the respondent while giving treatment to the complainants wife by giving a wrong injection she developed feeling of lackness of sensitivity on her hip and lower limbs and thereafter she was given treatment at Tirunelveli Government Hospital for nearly more than 22 days and after discharge after some time she died due to the sickness and thereby filed the complaint against the opposite party which was dismissed by the District Forum as she has not proved the deficiency of service of the opposite party.
8. While contraverting contents of the appellant the opposite party contended that the complainants wife came for treatment having complaints of pain over the body and after careful examination she was given an injection and advised certain tests which were not carried over by the complainants wife Subbulakshmi and when she came for second time she was referred to Government Hospital by giving reference letter to the patient and the injection given cannot cause such paraplegia and in no way the treatment given by the opposite party is of deficiency of service. On perusal of the both sides documents it is not in dispute that the complainant took her wife Subbulakshmi on 16.9.03 at about 8.00 p.m to the opposite party for having complaints of pain and after examination she was given Overran injection for the relief of pain and it is also not in dispute that on the next day on 17.9.03 she was brought before the opposite party for the alleged inability in movements of the limbs and sent for further treatment at Government Hospital, Tirunelveli by giving the reference letter by the opposite party as per Exhibit A3 it is stated that the patient is referred for case of Paraplegia for favour of admission and further management. Only on the basis the complainants wife was given treatment from 17.09.03 till 7.10.03 at Tirunelveli Government Hospital as per Exhibits A6 and A10 and as per records she was discharged on her own request on 17.10.03 and subsequently she died on 14.3.04 as per Exhibit A8 certificate nearly after 6 months from the discharge of the hospital. In those circumstances whether the mere injection Overran (Diaclopenacsodium) given by the opposite party on 16.9.2003 for the complaints of pain over the body would cause or lead to Paraplegia is the point to be decided. In order to disprove that giving mere injection for the killing of pain it will not lead to such a drastic symptoms or occurrence of Paraplegia before the District Forum one medical officer was examined as an expert as RW1 on behalf of the opposite partys side and in the chief examination he has stated that the alleged Overran injection used to be given normally for such complaints of pain and who had given the treatment at Tirunelveli Hospital to the complainants wife stated as she was suffering from Accute Transfers Mellitus (affecting infection in the vertibra) and the inspection may be due to various reasons and if any injection given on a particular part of the body in a wrong manner or with wrong medicines it would affect only on the particular portion of the body alone and would not lead to affect of entire portion of the body or limbs and such affecting of body may be due to various reasons it would occur. In the cross examination by the complainant there is no effective reply was obtained to favour the complainants case.
From those details it is clear about causing of Paraplegia or affecting senses on the particular place of the body depends upon various causes and not by giving infection alone. Even on perusal of Exhibit A10 the same injection was given to the complainants wife while taking treatment in the Government hospital and was also advised to continue the steroids and physiotherapy in spite of the treatment itself for alleged paraplygia., Further the respondent has produced the text on medical terms relating to the administration Diachlopenacsodium medicine by wayof Tablets or injections for which it is stated regarding adverse effects of Dicholopenac are generally mild Paraplegia pain, Nausea, headache dizziness, vasos gastic ulceration and bleeding or less common.
Reversible elevation of serum amino transferrases can occur. Kidney damage is rare. In our case as adverse effects of Paraplegia was not mentioned in the medical literature for administering that injection. In our case, the respondent/opposite party proved through RW1 expert witness that the injection overran could be administered normally for the complaints of body pain which cannot cause any adverse impact over the entire body except for the place where the injection was wrongly administered or given and thereby it was also proved by her that she acted in accordance with practice accepted as proper by reasonable body of medicalmen and also as the complainants wife not followed the advise made by the opposite party for taking necessary tests advised by the opposite party and after proper diagnose referred the case to the Government Hospital where the complainants wife was given for treatment for more than 22 days and got discharge on her own request. Further the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a ruling reported in AIR 2001 (8) (SCC) 731 in which it is held as follows :- In view of the notings made on hospital record of appellant it cannot be said that respondent committed error in diagnosing problem all risks were communicated to her and she has given time to reflect over not guilty of negligence which he had acted in accordance with practice accepted as proper by reasonable body of medicalmen-respondent not guilty of negligence.
9. Hence there cannot be any negligence on the part of the opposite party in giving treatment at the first instance to the complainants wife Subbulakshmi which cannot lead the consequence developments regarding the sickness to the complainants wife. Further the complainant failed to prove that he had spent lot of money for the further treatment of his wife except to prove that he has spent some money for taking scan as per Exhibit A4. Hence in our view the District Forum after considering both sides materials and after analyzing the same in proper manner dismissed the complaint with which finding in view of the reasons discussed as above we are also of the view that there is no need for any interference with the finding of the District Forum and accordingly the appeal deserves to be dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum.
9. In the result the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Forum, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.26/2008 dated 10.04.2007. No order as to costs in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka// Medl.