State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Mrs.Mamtha R.K., Consultant ... vs Master.Daniel, 29, College Road, ... on 11 July, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : HONBLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI PRESIDENT THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.NO.544/2011
(As against the order in CC.No.25/2010 on the file of DCDRF, Udagamandalam) DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY 2013 Dr.Mrs.Mamtha R.K., Consultant (Optho) (Eye) Surgeon Lawly Hospital Corner, 420, Near Dhanam Ortho Clinic, M/s.Satish Parasaran Mount Road, Coonoor 643 102, Counsel for Appellant/Opp.party The Nilgiris.
-vs-
Master.Daniel, 29, College Road, Coonoor-643 102, The Nilgiris, M/s.Srinath Sridevan Rep by his guardian/father Counsel for Respondent / A.Charles. Complainant The Respondent as the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.12,034/- towards medical expenses, to pay Rs.585/- as treatment given by Dr.Mamtha, R.K. to pay Rs.11,449/- towards medical expenses to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint.
Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant / opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.25/2010 dated 14.10.2010.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.6.2013, 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.
THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite party is the appellant.
-2-2. The complainant had taken his minor son Daniel for treatment since a broom stick pierced the right eye to the opposite partys clinic on 30.03.2010.
The opposite party had given initial treatment on receipt of fees for Rs.200/- and Rs.385/- for medicines and dressing charges and requested to come after 2 days. On 1.4.2010, when the complainant approached the opposite party, after examination he was informed that there pus was formed and in order to save the eye to be admitted as inpatient as there appears to be stick in his eye and required surgery. As the complainant has not satisfied with the treatment of the opposite party immediately taken his son to Emmannuel Eye Hospital and after examination he was referred to Aravind Eye Hospital, Coimbatore.
The complainants son was admitted as inpatient and under gone surgery and broom stick has been removed and underwent treatment for 12 days and continued treatment as out patient as advised. Regarding the treatment given by the opposite party the complainant given a complaint to the Consumer Protection Association and through which the notice was sent on 19.4.2010 to the opposite party and reply was received on 26.4.2010 denying the allegations of the complainant and thereby the complainant has come forward with the consumer complaint claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings of his son and to pay Rs.12,034/- towards medical expenses and costs.
3. The District Forum after an enquiry on the basis of denial of the allegations of the opposite party allowed the complaint by directing the opposite -3- party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.11,500/- towards medical expenses and to pay Rs.1500/- towards costs.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party filed this appeal contending that the opposite party had given her best treatment to the complainants son on complaints of eye pain and on examination some dust particle seem to be embedded in the cornea could be removed by surgical procedure for which the patient was required to be admitted as inpatient and the complainant refused for the same and stated that he needs two days time to raise the requisite funds.
Hence the opposite party has given first aid only to the boy and dressing had been made with pad and bandage, to prevent further injury or aggrevation of the injury. Hence no deficiency in service was committed by the opposite party.
5. Per contra the Respondent / complainant contended that even at the time of the complaint on 30.3.2010 itself the presence of broom stick could have been identified and removed as a prudent medical officer if due care and attention exercised, but without doing so simply dressed the injury with pad and bandage and sent back which lead subsequent damages to the eye due to existence of foreign material for more than two days which made infection to the eye and thereby the surgery had to be done.
6. We have carefully considered both sides arguments and contentions and on perusal of the materials placed before us. We find that it is the admitted -4- case of both sides that as on 30.3.2010 at the time of examination for the first time under Ex.A1 it is recorded some dust particle has been found in the eye and without taking steps for removal immediately in view of the pain and sufferings undergone by the patient and not even to ascertain the nature of the dust particle which is a broom stick, the opposite party being the qualified eye specialist simply dressed the wound with pad an bandage and sent back since the complainant alleged to have required time for getting requisite funds for surgery. But the complainant repudiated the same and produced the bank account Statement under Ex.A13 to show that he was having sufficient money. Since the complainants son having continued pain and sufferings he was taken to Emmanual Eye Hospital on 1.4.2010 and after examination found that Broom stick was embedded in the eye with infection referred to Aravind Eye Hospital, Coimbatore and as per report of the Arvind Eye Hospital under Ex.A5 it is recorded as follows:
This is to report that Mr.Daniyal. C age 9 years male (M R No.1260820) came on 01.04.10 with complaints of injury to right eye with stick on 30.03.10. Patient was already treated primarily elsewhere. On examination right eye showed a impacted wooden piece on the cornea with surrounding infiltrate and hypopyon. Foreign body was removed and plated on blood agar. Corneal scraping was done under general anesthesia which showed many gram positive bacilli (Atypical mycobacterium). Blood agar showed growth of bacillus species. Appropriate antibiotics were started based on sensitivity report.-5-
From these details it is clear that the eye was impacted wooden piece on the cornea with surrounding infiltrate and hypopyon. Corneal scraping was done under general anesthesia which showed many gram positive bacilli, growth of bacillus species which means infection of eye. If the broom stick was immediately removed as soon as to the opposite party on 30.3.2010 it self, the patient could not have suffered complications like forming of pus, growth of bacillus species for which subsequently antibiotic treatment was given. On perusal of Ex.A1 medical report of the opposite party it is mentioned that corneal abrasion mild. Minute dust particle over abrasion and she had given 3 days medicines. As per the tablets prescribed on the reverside of the report of Ex.A1 and also the complainant filed Ex.A2 tablets cover and details of mode of taking tablets by way of details by rubber stamp and in one of the covers the total amount for tablets , dressing charges and doctor fees are also entered on the cover in all total for Rs.585/- which is also go to show that the opposite party postponed the further management of treatment for 3 days which would exposes the negligence and carelessness on the part of the opposite party and instead of referring the patient to the Government Hospital or some other institutions, if the patient is not having requisite funds for surgery or removal process of the foreign body from the eye and thereby even though that the opposite party claimed that the subsequent treatment at Emmanual Eye Hospital or Aravind Eye Hospital could -6- have caused damages as she had given treatment for only one day on 30.3.2010 which cannot be accepted since as per Ex.A1 even she has not properly diagnosed regarding the nature of foreign body (Broom stick embedded) in the eye and simply stated some dust particle present and caused due to rubbing. In those circumstances we are of the view that the District Forum has considered all the aspects regarding the claim and the allegations of the opposite party including the question raised by the opposite party regarding the maintainability of the complaint without expert opinion with which we are in concurrence since the complainant relied upon the ruling reported in IV (2011) CPJ 218 (NC) in the case of Kapildeo Singh (Dr.) Sagina Khatoon in which it is held as follows :
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2 (1) (g), 14 (1) (d), 21 (b) Medical Negligence Defective Operation Administration of high dose of anesthesia Patient expired Forum allowed complaint State Commission dismissed appeal Contention, no expert opinion taken in matter at any stage and would be wrong to conclude that there was any negligence while administering anesthesia to patient Not accepted Negligence is evident, principle of res ipsa loquitur operates Respondent to prove that he has taken care and done his duty properly Order of State Commission upheld.
and thereby we find no merits in this appeal. Regarding the question of quantum of compensation and other awards are concerned the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.11,500/- towards medical -7- expenses spent by the complainant for the treatment in the Emmanual Eye Hospital and Arvind Eye Hospital for which necessary documentary proofs have been filed under Ex.A6 and even though the complainant claimed Rs.12,034/- by excluding the amount paid to the opposite party only Rs.11500/- alone was allowed and directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as costs which are all normal, reasonable and justified and acceptable one and thereby the appeal in toto liable to be dismissed. Accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.25/2010, dated 14.10.2010. The District Forum order shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.
No order as to costs in the appeal.
A.K.ANNAMALAI R.REGUPATHI (J) MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX ; YES / NO VL/D;/PJM/ORDER