State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Guhapriya Vasudevan, Sri Sathya ... vs Tmt.Jayammal, on 27 March, 2014
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI BEFORE : THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER THIRU.S.SAMBANDAM MEMBER COMMON ORDER
F.A.NOS.869/2010 & 250/2011 (Against the order in CC.No.79/2001, dated 14.10.2010 on the file of DCDRF, Namakkal) DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MARCH 2014 F.A.NO.869/2010
1. Dr.Guhapriya Vasudevan, Sri Sathya Narayanan Hospital, M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran Pallipalayam, Counsel for Appellants / Komarapalayam 638
183. Opposite parties 2 & 3
2. Dr.J.L.N.Vasudevan, Sri Sathya Narayanan Hospital, Pallipalayam, Komarapalayam 638
183.
-vs-
1. Tmt.Jayammal, W/o.Subramani, M/s.R.Dhanalakshmi Power Office Bank side, Counsel for 1st Respondent / Komarapalayam 638 183, Complainant Namakkal District.
2. J.K.K.Trust Hospital, Rep by its Trustee J.K.K.Sundaram (Died), M/s.R.Sampath 117, Pallipalayam Road, Counsel for 2nd Respondent & Komarapalayam 638183. /1st Opposite party
3. Dr.Mathivanan, Sri Sakthi Hospital, Sakthi Road, M/s.B.L.Lavanya Near Mariammn Koil, Counsel for 3rd Respondent Veerappanchatram, 4th Opposite party Komarapalayam 638 183, Erode.
-2-4. J.K.K.Trust Hospital, Rep.by its Trustee J.K.S.Manickam, M/s.R.Sampath 117, Pallipalayam Road, Counsel for 4th Respondent/ Komarapalayam 638
183. 5th opposite party F.A.NO.250/2011 Dr.Mathivanan, Sri Sakthi Hospital, Sakthi Road, M/s.B.L.Lavanya Near Mariamman Koil, Counsel for Appellant / Veerappanchatram, 4th opposite party Komarapalayam 638 183, Erode.
-VS-
1. Tmt.Jayammal, W/o.Subramani, M/s.R.Dhanalakshmi Power Office Bank side, 1st Respondent / Komarapalayam 638 183, Complainant Namakkal District.
2. J.K.K.Trust Hospital, Rep.by its Trustee J.K.S.Manickam, Respondents 2 to 5 117, Pallipalayam Road, Opposite parties 1 to 3 & 5 Komarapalayam 638
183. Given up
3. Dr.Guhapriya Vasudevan, Sri Sathya Narayanan Hospital, Pallipalayam, Komarapalayam 638
183.
4. Dr.J.L.N.Vasudevan, Sri Sathya Narayanan Hospital, Pallipalayam, Komarapalayam 638
183.
5. J.K.K.Trust Hospital, Rep by its Trustee J.K.S.Manickam 117, Pallipalayam Road, Komarapalayam 638
183. -3- The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellants / opposite parties 2 & 3 prefer an appeal in F.A.No.869/2010 and the appellant / 4th opposite party prefer an appeal in F.A.No.250/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.79/2001, dated 14.10.2010.
These appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 07.02.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 The opposite parties 2 , 3 and 4 have filed these two appeals separately against one and the same order passed by the District Forum, Namakkal in CC.No.79/2001 in F.A.No.869/2010 by opposite parties 2 and 3 and in F.A.No.250/2011 by the 4th opposite party.
2. The complainant / 1st Respondent filed a complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 5 including the appellants and initially against the opposite parties 1 to 3 and subsequently against the 4th opposite party since the 1st opposite party represented by the person died and the 5th opposite party added alleging negligence in giving treatment for the complainant regarding the delivery of the child in which the 4th opposite party said to have given anesthesia injection in a wrongful manner in L-4 and L5 of the backbone which caused subsequent trouble giving continuous back pain and sufferings and thereby the complainant having come forward to file this consumer complaint claiming Rs.4,95,000/- as compensation for mental and physical sufferings, monetary loss and physical disablement due to defective and negligent service of the opposite parties and to pay Rs.2000/- as costs.
-4-3. The opposite parties 1 to 4 denying the allegations of the complainant in their written version and the 4th opposite party contended that the anesthesia was properly given at the time of treatment for the surgery of LSCS and the alleged injection was not given as L4 and L5 and it was given only in L2 or L3 level and the complainant after taking treatment with the 1st opposite partys Hospitals she had taken treatment subsequently from other doctors and Hospitals and had not produced any materials to show that the alleged back pain was caused and continued only because of the alleged wrong injection given in the wrong place and thereby there was no negligence or deficiency on their part and a complaint was barred by limitation.
5. The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry came to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties which resulted in high degree of mental pain accompanying mixed feelings of distress, fright and anxiety to the complainant and spent considerable amount towards treatment and thereby allowing the complaint directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation with costs of Rs.3,000/-.
6. Against the impugned order as stated above the appellants have filed these appeal separately and since these two appeals arose against the single order of the District Forum based on the same cause of action, we have taken both the appeals together for hearing and heard both sides arguments and upon perusal of the materials and oral arguments the order being passed.
-5-7. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant was admitted on 3.11.1997 for the delivery of the child with the 1st opposite party Hospital and the baby was delivered after the performance of L.S.C.S by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties from which the 4th opposite party said to have given anesthesia injection for the performance of surgery. It is the contention of the complainant that she was in the hospital from 3.11.1997 till 11.11.1997 from the date of surgery she had developed severe back pain and after discharged once again admitted on 15.11.1997 with the 1st opposite party Hospital and stayed as inpatient for 2 days and also it is the case of the complainant that she took treatment with Dr.Natesan on 19.12.1997 and the complainant has admitted at Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore on 23.3.1998 and was inpatient till 31.3.98. It is the case of the complainant from the treatment given at Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore she was diagnosed with L-4 L-5 0-level infective discitis with spondylities i.e., due to inspection in the above discus which is caused due to wrong treatment. The complainant had not produced any medical records regarding the treatments given by the opposite parties 1 to 4 at the 1st opposite party Hospital from 3.11.1997 to 15.11.97 she had produced the documents relating to the treatment taken at Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore from the period from 23.3.98 till 31.3.98 under Ex.A3 with relates to MRI scan. The MRI scan and Ex.A4 Discharge summary and medical prescription for subsequent treatment taken from the Hospital. These documents did not reveal any deficiency regarding the injection of anesthesia -6- wrongly given in L-4 and L-5. Before the District Forum in their cross examination revealed that the alleged injection was given in the L4 and L5 disc of spinal card could be caused due to other reasons also including having infection and the medical Officer categorically admitted in his cross examination that he could not states that because the injection given in the wrong L4 and L5 alone the alleged back pain and other problems was cause. He had admitted that he had not given any treatment to the complainant. Whereas the complainant had admitted in the cross examination she had taken maternity care also during the year 1999 in some other Hospital and she was admitted after 15.12.97 for the treatment taken with one Dr.Natesan at Erode and subsequently with two other doctors. In order to establish that for the continuous pain because of the wrong injection of Anesthesia at the time of delivery since it is also suggested for the preparation of LSCS surgery could not be posted to make the patient become sedation by giving at a stretch of single dose of Anesthesia in a particular part of the body and there must be the anesthesia after taken to give or given the same by one or two places of the body and the 4th opposite party stated that he had given the injection in the L-4 and L-5 level and to prove this contention the opposite parties have failed to produce any one of the treatment of documents from the 1st opposite partys Hospital. The complainant also has not produced any documents for the treatment given by the 1st opposite party hospital by the opposite parties 2 to 4. No doubt that the complainant has to prove only because of the alleged injection given in the wrong place of the spinal cord suffering continuous back pain till 1998 which made the complainant to take \ treatment at Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore for further treatment.
-7-8. In those circumstances we are of the view that the complainant failed to point out the exact negligence of the opposite parties 1 to 4 in giving wrong treatment for her while she was under the care which admitted for delivery of child and thereby they cannot held liable for any deficiency of service and negligence in this regard.
9. But as far as the act of the opposite parties 1 to 4 is concerned they failed to disprove the case of the complainant and to prove their contentions that the injection was given only at L2 and L3 level of the spinal guard for which no reasons was adduced by them. As per the various judgements of the National Commission and Apex court the non supply of medical records to the patient like discharge summary, records etc within the reasonable time (within 72 hours from the date of time of requests made. As per MCI regulations and rules) would amounts to deficiency of service for which the complainant must be suitably compensated. This is also held in various rulings and this commissions has reiterated the same in its order in F.A.No.510/2010 dated 14.8.2013 reported in IV (2013 ) CPJ 64 TN and thereby we are inclined to hold that the non supply of necessary treatment documents including the discharge summary to the complainant at the time of discharge from the Hospital or subsequently in order to establish the mode of treatment / nature of treatment given to the complainant to disprove against the alleged negligence or deficiency we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as -8- compensation for the same and for the foregoing reasons and discussions made above and accordingly In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District forum as follows:
The order of the district Forum directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- is hereby setaside since the negligence and deficiency of service by the opposite parties against the complainant are not proved by the complainant.
The opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 are found negligence and deficiency of service in not providing of medical records to the complainant for which they are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in all jointly and severally to the complainant The District Forum order directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs is hereby confirmed No separate order as to costs in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER