State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anna Marie, W/O Motchanathan, vs Dr.K.Sivadasan, M.D.(Ortho), Having ... on 24 June, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY FRIDAY, the 24th day of June, 2011 First Appeal No.13/2008 Anna Marie, W/o Motchanathan, No.1, Ayyanar Koil Street, Puducherry-13. Appellant Vs. Dr.K.Sivadasan, M.D.(Ortho), Having hospital under the name & style, Sai Kirupa Hospital, Cuddalore Road, (near Malai Malar Office), Puducherry. . Respondent (On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.35 of 2006, dated 12.11.2007) Consumer Complaint No.35 of 2006 Anna Marie, W/o Motchanathan, No.1, Ayyanar Koil Street, Puducherry-13. Complainant Vs. Dr.K.Sivadasan, M.D.(Ortho), Having hospital under the name & style, Sai Kirupa Hospital, Cuddalore Road, (near Malai Malar Office), Puducherry. . Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE JUSTICE THIRU J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR PRESIDENT TMT. K.K.Ritha, MEMBER
THIRU K.ELUMALAI, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:
Tvl. K.Parasuraman, S.Narasimha Balamurugan, S.Ganesh Gnanasambanthan and U.Mohan Ilayaraja, Advocates, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Tvl.S.Sathish & S.Doraisamy, Advocates, Puducherry O R D E R (By Tmt K.K.Ritha, Member) This appeal filed by the appellant/complainant challenges the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry on 12.11.2007 in consumer Complaint No.35/2006. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant in the said order. Now, the appellant/complainant approached this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Forum and allow the appeal with costs.
2. The facts of the complaint are that on 16.05.2004, the complainant met with an accident and immediately she was admitted in opposite partys hospital. After examination of her by the O.P. and on seeing the X-ray, it was diagnosed that she had posterior dislocation on her right elbow, applied Plaster of Paris dressing and prescribed medicines. She was discharged on the same day with an advice to come for review after fifteen days and a sum of Rs.1,350/- was charged for that treatment.
3. On 24.05.2004, she was admitted at Madhava Hospital, Puducherry for severe pain in the abdomen and urinary infection, which according to the complainant was due to the heavy dosage of medicines prescribed by the opposite party. She was discharged from the said hospital on 27.05.2004 and Rs.7,500/- was charged towards her treatment.
4. Again, on 05.06.2004, the complainant was admitted at opposite partys hospital for review and removal Plaster of Paris dressing. Without taking X-ray, the complainant was advised for physiotherapy, even though she had unbearable pain at that time and discharged on 09.06.2004 by charging Rs.2,902/-
The complainant was advised to continue physiotherapy treatment in opposite partys hospital and Rs.50/- per day was charged. On 12.07.2004, she was constrained to go for a second medical opinion from Dr.R.V.Krishnakumar, since her pain did not subside. The doctor took X-ray and advised her for open reduction surgery which ought to have been done immediately after the removal of Plaster of Paris by the opposite party, which he failed to do.
According to the complainant, this undue delay on the part of opposite party is deemed to be negligence in discharging his duties. Then, the complainant underwent open reduction surgery at MIOT Hospital, Chennai and discharged her after ten days with advise to come for a review for removal of K wire and elbow mobilization. She had spent a sum of Rs.75,000/- at MIOT Hospital. The complainant is unable to do her household duties and her personal needs and so she is depending on servant maid for the past one year. She had spent more than Rs.85,000/- towards medical expenses. The District Forum failed to note that the O.P. had miserably failed and neglected to take check X-ray on 7th day of the closed reduction surgery and gave her wrong treatment for nearly two months and thus, she was suffering from severe pain, mental agony, disability and heavy monetary loss.
5. The opposite party denies all the allegations made by the appellant/ complainant and states that the complainant came to his hospital with posterior dislocation of right elbow.
She had severe pain and complete loss of rotational movements in the elbow. After Plaster of Paris, the pain reduced substantially. A check X-ray was taken with Plaster of Paris and reduction was found to be satisfactory. She was discharged by giving simple drugs. After the expected duration of treatment was over, the Plaster of Paris was removed and physiotherapy was given by admitting her in opposite partys hospital for a few days. She was discharged with a advise to continue physiotherapy and follow up treatment. Then, the movement of elbow had considerably improved by proper exercises.
As such, the opposite party has followed the established medical practice of attempting to cure the patient by physiotherapy and even Dr.R.V.Krishnakumar had the same observation as on 13.07.2004 in respect of the complainants case. When the complainant went to Dr.R.V.Krishnakumar for second opinion, the latter had suggested for open reduction prognosis, but nowhere in his observation suggested that non-reduction in movement of elbow was due to improper treatment of the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party states that he has carried out the treatment with all sincerity and in good faith and there is no negligence on his part.
6. Now, in the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant before this Commission, the main allegations are that the complainant developed urinary infection due to heavy dosage of medicines taken by her as prescribed by the opposite party and the same was treated in another hospital, Madhava Hospital, Puducherry. Another complaint is that the opposite party was negligent and did not take follow up X-ray to revise the course of treatment, but discharged with the advise to continue only physiotherapy treatment.
7. It is not disputed that the complainant was treated on 16.05.2004 in opposite partys hospital for dislocation of right elbow and discharged on the same day by applying Plaster of Paris slab and prescribed medicines. She was asked to come after fifteen days for review. According to the complainant, on 24.05.2004 she developed urinary infection due to heavy dosage of medicines prescribed by the opposite party and she was admitted at Madhava Hospital for treatment.
8. The opposite party in his reply notice as well in the deposition denied the above allegations of the complainant that urinary infection was due to opposite partys medicines. He stated that the patient was advised simple analgesic only (paracetamol- equivalent of crocin which is sold over the counter) with some vitamins and chymoral forte (which reduces tissue oedema). These are one of the simplest combination of drugs used in any trauma management.
9. The complainant has made allegations in the complaint as well as in her deposition as CW1 about the urinary infection caused because of over dosage of medicines given by the opposite party. For any allegations of medical negligence, the complainant has to establish the facts beyond any reasonable doubts. In this case, there is no concrete evidence, no expert was examined, produced any text to prove that the complainant suffered from urinary infection because of over dosage of medicines prescribed by the opposite party. Ex.C17, the prescription given by Madhava Hospital, wherein the complainant had undergone treatment for urinary infection, does not contain any of the above allegations of the complainant. The complainant has not substantiated any allegations through any Medical expert to establish the harmful effects of the medicines prescribed by the opposite party. Since the complainant has failed to prove her allegations against the opposite party, regarding the over dosage of the medicines given to her, this Commission cannot accept the same and has to be rejected.
10. Another allegation put forth by the complainant against the O.P is for not taking follow up X-ray and advised to do only physiotherapy. Even after prolonged treatment, there was severe pain and restricted movement in her right elbow and the complainant was constrained to go for a second medical opinion from Dr.R.V.Krishnakumar, who had taken an X-ray and open reduction surgery was advised for her. The open reduction surgery ought to have been done immediately after the removal of Plaster of Paris but, the opposite party failed to take X-ray after removing the Plaster of Paris to detect the result of closed reduction treatment and further course of treatment.
11. Dr.R.V.Krishnakumar, CW2, in his deposition stated that in cases of elbow dislocation, the patient is treated maximum by closed reduction treatment and physiotherapy.
He has also mentioned that there is nothing wrong in the line of treatment given by an orthopaedic in case of dislocation of joint, if he has done the closed reduction first, followed by physiotherapy.
12. Now, the question before this Commission is whether the line of treatment adopted by the opposite party is in tune with the normal procedure or is there any abnormality in the treatment given to the complainant? Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party with regard to the procedure adopted for treatment the complainant or not?
13. For this, we have to define medical negligence as lack of reasonable care and skill or willful negligence on the part of a Doctor irrespective of acceptance of a patient, history taking, examination, diagnosis , investigation, treatment, medical or surgical, etc. resulting any injury or damage to the patient. To prove medical negligence, the onus of proof lies on the person making such allegations. In the present case, the complainant has not proved through evidence, expert or through any decided case that the method adopted by the opposite party in treating is in violation of medical norms.
14. Further, the complainant filed a sheet of chart Essential Orthopaedics by J.Maheswari regarding Injuries around the Elbow. This was not marked and it is not a full text but only the diagram and the complainant failed to elucidate the relevance of the text in the present case.
Hence, it cannot be taken into consideration for deciding this case.
15. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that there was negligence or deficiency in rendering medical service against the opposite party. It is settled by number of decisions of the Honble National Commission as well as Honble Supreme Court, that if while treating a patient a Doctor In-charge adopts the conventional method and ,manner of treatment, as prescribed by texts and followed by Specialists of the line and during the treatment even if the patient does not respond and death takes place, the Doctor attending the patient cannot be accused of negligence or deficiency in service.
16. Since the appellant/complainant failed to establish neither negligence nor deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.35/2006, dated 12.11.2007 in dismissing the complaint is confirmed.
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 (J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR) PRESIDENT (K.K.RITHA) MEMBER (K.ELUMALAI) MEMBER