State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajiv Navath, vs Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib on 15 November, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/12/164 (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/12/2012 in Case No. CC/08/231 of District Ernakulam) 1. RAJIV NAVATH PUTHAN VAYAL HOUSE.P.O,MELUR,THALASSERY KANNUR KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DR.SHAJAHAN YOUSUF CHAIRMAN AND MD,AL SHIFA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL FOR PILES ERNAKULAM KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERAL A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.164/12
JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.12
PRESENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
Rajiv Navath,
S/0 Achuthan, Puthan Vayal House,
P.O.Melur, -- APPELLANT
Thalassery-670 661.
(By Adv.K.K.Ramesh)
Vs.
1. Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib,
Chairman and M.D.
AL-Shifa Super Speciality Hospital for Piles,
Near KSRTC . Rajaji Road,
Kochi - 35. -- RESPONDENTS
2. Dr.P.C.Joseph, Medical Superintendent
AL-Shifa Super Speciality Hospital for piles
Near KSRTC. Rajaji Road, Kochi.
3. AL-Shifa Super Speciality Hospital for Piles,
Near KSRTC . Rajaji Road,
Kochi - 35.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant in CC.231/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. It is alleged in the complaint that on 19.7.06, he approached the third opposite party for treatment of piles (Haemorrhoids). After examination, the first and second opposite parties advised him to undergo laser treatment on the very same day. Accordingly at about 10.30 A.M, opposite parties 1 and 2 administered Laser treatment on the complainant. He was discharged on the same day with a direction to take rest for 2 weeks and medicines were also prescribed for him. The complainant took rest for one day at Ernakulam and then went to his native place at Thalassery. On the third day, the complainant felt acute pain in his anus. The complainant contacted the second opposite party over telephone. He advised to take 'voveran 50' tablets. Since there was no relief, the complainant again contacted the second opposite party and he prescribed voveran injection. Even after administration of the injection, the pain persisted. On 6.8.06, the complainant was admitted at the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery due to severe pain in his anus. Dr. Sunil Kumar examined the complainant and found that the anus had shrunk because of the laser treatment. The doctor prescribed some medicines to heal the wound. He was treated as inpatient in the hospital from 17.8.06 to 21.8.06. The rashness and negligence of opposite parties 1 and 2 resulted in the injury to the anus of the complainant. It is understood that the first opposite party is not having any degree in medicine. The complainant sought a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs from the opposite parties with interest and costs.
2. The opposite parties filed joint version and contended that the complainant approached the outpatient wing of the first opposite party on 18.7.06 with complaints of bleeding PR due to haemorrhoids. The patient complained of bleeding which was persistent for the previous one week. He had the clinical history of cryosurgery done for haemorrhoids ten years back at a hospital at Thalassery. On examination internal and external prolapsed masses were confirmed. Routine blood and urine examination were conducted and the results were found normal. DRS could not be conduced due to complaint of pain. On 19.7.06, the patient was treated by laser and radio frequency under spinal anesthesia by the second opposite party with utmost care and skill . Prior to the treatment, the patient was briefed well regarding the complications involving cryosurgery as well as regarding the advantages of laser treatment and compared to other surgical methods, laser being a non-surgical and non-invasive modern scientific method of treatment has proved its efficiency for diseases like haemorrhoids. The patient opted laser treatment. He signed a letter of consent reflecting the instructions and advises given by the attending doctors. The patient was discharged on the very same day with advice to continue medicines and ointments, sitz bath etc post operatively. On 26.7.06, the patient contacted the hospital through phone and complained of pain in the operated area. The second opposite party advised him to apply ointments and take voveran injection if the pain was severe. The patient was also advised to come to the hospital for further check up and examination if pain persisted. But he never approached the third opposite party hospital. The doctors who attended the complainant are qualified and experienced hands. There was no negligence on their part. If the complainant had any complication he could have come to the hospital for remedial measures. Since he had not approached the third opposite party hospital it is not possible to give any explanation on the subsequent developments. The opposite parties had correctly diagnosed the disease and necessary treatments were given with utmost care. The treatment adopted by the doctors were proper. The complainant was looked after well and was given all medical assistance with required standard. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. Before the CDRF, Ernakulam, the complainant gave evidence as PW1. One witness was examined on his side as PW2. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. The second opposite party gave evidence as DW1. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. Exts.X1 & X2 were also marked.
4. After analyzing the evidence available, the Forum concluded that deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite parties was not established and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal by the complainant.
5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any error in the conclusions of the CDRF, Ernakulam.
6. It is admitted that the complainant approached the third opposite party hospital for treatment of haemorrhoids on 19.7.06 Laser and radio frequency treatment was done under spinal anesthesia. There was subsequent pain in the anus of the complainant and his anus shrunk. According to the complainant this was due to the careless and negligent laser treatment. It is seen from the evidence of the complainant himself that he was suffering from haemorrhoids for the past 12 years. Approximately 10 years back, he had undergone cryosurgery at the Santhosh Hospital, Thalassery. According to him haemorrhoids did not trouble him for 8 years. In 2005 again he got the same disease. He was taking medicines and when ever he stopped medicines, haemorrhoid troubled him. It was accordingly he went to the third opposite party hospital on18.7.06 and was subjected to laser treatment on the next day.
7. One of the contentions on which the complaint is sought to be sustained is that the opposite parties especially the first opposite party is not a qualified doctor to treat haemorrhoids. The details of qualifications of both opposite parties 1 and 2 are available in evidence. It appears from the evidence of the complainant that the first opposite party took him to the consultation room of the second opposite party and examination was conducted there. He admitted that he was informed in detail about the laser treatment and cryosurgery. He denied the suggestion that the option to undergo laser treatment was his. He claimed that opposite parties 1 and 2 together had treated him but admitted that he had signed the consent letter. It is quite obvious that informed consent was obtained from the complainant before he was subjected to laser treatment. I have referred to the very allegation in the complaint that when he suffered pain after he returned to the native place, he in fact contacted the second opposite party. This is repeated in the deposition of the complainant also. So, it is quite obvious that it was the second opposite party doctor who conducted the laser treatment. The first opposite party might have been present or assisted the second opposite party. The deposition of the second opposite party also shows that it was he who treated the patient. The second opposite party holds M.B.B.S degree issued by the Kerala University in 1970. He is a medical practitioner in modern medicine registered with Travancore Cochin Medical Council, from 23.9.70. It is further seen that he has obtained MS Degree in general surgery from the very same University in August 1987. This qualification is seen entered as additional qualification with the medical council on 9.4.96. So it is quite obvious that the second opposite party was a well qualified doctor and it was he who conducted the laser treatment.
8. The complainant relies on the evidence of PW2 the doctor who treated him subsequently when he was admitted in the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery. According to him due to the surgery at the hospital of the third opposite party, there was severe infection for the complainant. He deposed that the patient had not told him on the procedure to which the complainant was subjected to but he gave medicine to heal that portion. The patient was examined by him 17.8.06 again and he found that the anus had shrunk. According to him, the surgery and infection at the hospital of the third opposite party was the reason for the complaints. Then he deposed that the patient told him that laser treatment was given at the third opposite party hospital. He deposed that medical treatment and surgical treatment are usually done in the case of haemorrhoids but it could not be completely cured using medicine. Ext.A4 contains the investigation and findings at the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital. PW2 stated that the diagnosis shown in Ext.A4 is septicemia and he admitted that it is a life threatening one. PW2 deposed that after surgery infection may occur to patients. Stricture to anus happens after surgery due to internal splint injury. Due to no other cause stricture would occur. He stated that it is incorrect to say that post operative infection is due to the negligence of the doctor.
9. The question is whether on the above evidence, any negligence can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties. It is pertinent to notice that the diagnosis of the cause of complaint was accurate. Laser treatment was one of the accepted procedures for the treatment of haemorrhoids. The second opposite party was a qualified doctor and it is in evidence that it is he who conducted the treatment. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that there was any carelessness in doing the laser treatment. The standard of care expected of a doctor is not that of the highest or the lowest but of reasonable standard of a qualified medical practitioner. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the second opposite party did not exhibit the standard of care reasonably expected of an expert. Under the said circumstances that subsequently the patient got infection at the anus is not sufficient to attribute negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It is pertinent to notice that after one days rest the patient undertook journey from Ernakulam to Thalassery. May be due to his carelessness and failure to follow the instructions he might have contracted the infection. It is significant to notice that at the point of time, when he complained of pain he did not suspect anything wrong with the treatment of the second opposite party. That was why he contacted the second opposite party and sought further advice. Shrinking of anus after laser treatment is a known complication and the second opposite party cannot be found fault with for that. Even the evidence of PW2, does not indicate that due to wrong application of laser shrinking of anus can happen. There is no evidence to indicate that the second opposite party deviated from the accepted procedure of laser treatment. If that be so, only because the complication of shrinking of anus happened the opposite parties cannot be found fault with. In short, the CDRF rightly concluded that negligence or carelessness on the part of the opposite parties is not established in evidence. It follows that there is no merit in the appeal.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER