State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.P.Ranganathan,Prn Hospitals, 82, ... vs C. Kaliappan,Mayor Nagar, Peramanur ... on 14 June, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.205/2008
[Against order in C.C.No.61/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Salem] DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2011 Dr.P.Ranganathan, | PRN Hospitals, | Appellant / Opposite Party 82, B/2, Peramanur Main Road, | Salem 636 007. | Vs. C. Kaliappan, | Respondent/ Complainant Mayor Nagar, Peramanur East, | Salem. HoH | The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation for medical expenses, mental agony and stress and strain, to pay Rs.54,000/- incurred as medical expenses and Rs.8,000/- paid towards cost of blood, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and to pay the cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.29.11.2007 in C.C.61/2004.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.05.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant /OP : Mr.P.Sathish, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.S.Natarajan, Advocate.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. Facts leading to this appeal:
The complainant/respondent had taken medical treatment for his ailment namely head ache and fever with the opposite party on 20.08.2003. The headache and fever have not come down and therefore once again on 21.08.2003, he went to the opposite party, for medical check up, taking various tests and the tests report revealed Dengue fever on 26.08.2003.
3. On 22.08.2003, the complainant had stomach disorder, for which, enema was given, but the problem continued. Because of the non-improvement, the complainant requested the opposite party to discharge him on 24.08.2003, whereas, he was discharged only on 26.08.2003, informing that the complainant was suffering from jaundice and Dengue fever. Thereafter, the complainant admitted in the Gopi Memorial Hospital, Salem and took treatment as inpatient, got cured completely, for which, he had to incur a sum of Rs.62,000/-, which should be reimbursed, by the opposite party since because of the wrong diagnosis and treatment given by the opposite party, amounting to medical negligence, he has suffered monetary loss, mental agony, for which, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation. Hence, the complaint.
4. The opposite party questioning the status of the complainant as consumer, explaining the treatment given by him, resisted the case, contending inter alia, that when the complainant complained of passing high coloured urine, liver function test was conducted in the Gopi Hospital (P) Ltd., for screening of leptospirosis, which revealed the presence of Leptospira-Spirochaetis seen strong positive [++], that repeated ultra scan abdomen was advised, but the complainant wanted to be discharged, informing that he wants to take native treatment for jaundice and that he left the hospital, on his own, against the medical advise, taking all the reports, including Case Sheet and thereafter it is not known to the opposite party, what had happened to the complainant thereafter that during the treatment, he has not committed any deficiency or negligent act and the claim against him, is inadmissible, praying for the dismissal of the case.
5. The District Forum by its order dated 29.11.2007, not considering the defence properly, has come to the conclusion, that the opposite party has failed to give the Discharge Summary for the period from 21.08.2003 to 26.08.2003, that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. In this view, granted a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation, towards deficiency of service with cost, negativing the other relief, which is challenged on various ground in this appeal.
6. The complainant lodged the consumer complaint before the District Forum, as seen from the averments, that the opposite party had committed medical negligence by giving wrong treatment. It is the further case that due to the wrong diagnosis and treatment given by the opposite party, he suffered lot of mental agony, pain as well as physical pain. Except the above averments, we find no other details, what was the wrong diagnosis and what was the wrong treatment given by the opposite party, resulting complication etc., No expert evidence also let in to prove the treatment given by the opposite party was improper or he failed to diagnosis the disease properly.
In the complaint, it is not the case of the complainant, that despite his request, the opposite party failed to give the case records or Discharge Summary though he contended in Para 2 of the complaint that despite his request to discharge from the hospital, the opposite party refused. This being the position, it is not known, how the District Forum has recorded a finding, that the failure on the part of the opposite party to give the Discharge Summary for the treatment taken from 21.08.2003 to 26.08.2003 should be construed as deficiency in service. The opposite party in its Written Version as well as in the affidavit would contend that the complainant left, against medical advise after taking all the reports and signed in the case sheet, thereby indicting that the opposite party had no chance to issue Discharge Summary or the Case Records as the case may be. We find no reason to ignore the above statement of the opposite party, considering the availability of tests report etc. taken when the complainant was taking treatment with the opposite party.
7. Admittedly, for some discomfort such as fever and headache, the complainant approached the opposite party on 20.08.2003. What was the medicines given by the opposite party is also not pleaded, and the opposite party also unable to plead in the absence of record since according to him, Case Records were taken by the complainant.
On 21.08.2003, medical check up conducted, treatment given, which is evidenced by Ex.A1. On 21.08.2003 blood test was conducted, which has not revealed any adverse condition and anti-dengue virus was also negative on 21.08.2003. On 22.08.2003, because of the abdominal problem reported by the complainant, scan was taken, which revealed everything was normal and the IMPRESSION: reads Normal appearing liver, gallbladder, pancreas, spleen, aorta, both kidneys, bladder and prostate. Therefore, as per the abdomen scan report since nothing came out as abnormal, we cannot find fault with the opposite party as if he had committed deficiency.
But the problem continued, compelling the complainant to stay in the hospital for treatment and on 27.08.2003, once again abdomen scan was taken, which alone showed some abnormality as per the IMPRESSION which reads Mild Hepatomegaly with diffuse Toxic Parenchymal changes Edematous/Thickened GB Wall Moderate Ascties Moderate RT Pleural Effussion / Mild LT Pleural Effusion. Lab Report also revealed Lepto Spira Spirochaetis and its grade was strong positive [++].
When the blood test was conducted on 26.08.2003 that alone revealed Bile Salts: Positive indicating symptom Jaundice probably. Based upon these reports, when the opposite party insisted for treatment continuity, as averred in the affidavit, the complainant insisted that he should be discharged and accordingly against the medical advise and he left the hospital and joined in the Gopi Hospital (P) Ltd., where he had taken treatment from 26.08.2003 to 06.09.2003 as seen from Ex.A2. The Discharge Summary issued by Gopi Hospital (P) Ltd., does not disclose, that the investigation conducted by the opposite party was erroneous or even before 26.08.2003, the complainant had the problem of Jaundice or Dengue fever as the case may be, including problem in the abdomen by the treatment given by the opposite party. As we have already pointed out when the complainant was in the hospital of the opposite party, they have also diagnose the same problem as indicated in the Discharge Summary, preceded by Lab Report etc. which is in accordance with the Lab Report given by the opposite party. Therefore, from the records, it is seen, when the complainant was properly diagnosed and treatment is to be started on the basis of proper diagnosis, he left the hospital and therefore, it is impossible to say that the opposite party has not properly diagnosed the problem of the complainant and has given wrong treatment.
8. It is the basic principle in a case of this nature that the initial burden is upon the complainant to prove that the doctor has committed any medical negligence, for which, absolutely we have no evidence.
The doctor who treated the complainant, at later point of time, has not given any affidavit or certificate, questioning the treatment given by the opposite party and the complainant also has not examined the Salem Gopi Hospitals Doctor, to fault the treatment given by the opposite party.
When the cause for fever, headache, stomach problem was under
investigation, taking appropriate blood tests, other kind of tests and when it was properly diagnosed, the complainant had left the hospital admittedly and therefore, if the complainant had incurred any expenses at Salem Gopi Hospital, for that, the opposite party cannot be held responsible and the alleged mental agony, sufferings are all in our considered opinion, imaginary, in the absence of medical evidence. The District Forum without properly analyzing the factual position and without going through the records also properly, has affixed the seal of deficiency upon the opposite party, which we are inclined to erase, for which, the appeal is deserves to be accepted.
9. Appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum in C.C.61/2004, dt.29.11.2007 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to cost, throughout.
10. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant / opposite party duly discharged, since appellant succeeded, and there is no need to retain the FDR.
J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT