State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Ch. Parthasarathi Rao Secunderabad vs Poluju Vijaya Kumar And 3 Others ... on 10 November, 2008
A A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A. 38/2006 against C.D. 535/1998 , Dist. Forum, Karimnagar Between: Dr. CH. Parthasarathi Rao S/o. CH. Muralidhar Rao Age: 50 years, Medical Practitioner Swetha Nursing Home, Old Employment Office Road Karimangar. Presently residing at Plot No. B-19, Vikrampuri Secunderabad. *** Appellant/ Opposite Party And 1. Poluju Vijaya Kumar (Died) 2. P. Balakrishna, S/o. Chandraiah 3. Smt. P. Ammakka W/o. P. Balakrishna Age: 50 years, 4. P. Sekhar S/o. Balakrishna Age: 30 years All are R/o. Manikanta Furniture Works Near Rural Police Station Old Bazar, Karimnagar. (R2 to R4 are brought on Record as per order in I.A. 2152/2006 Dt. 22.11.2006) *** Respondent/ Complainants Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K. Vasudeva Reddy. QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT & SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***** This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party Dr. CH. Parthasarathi Rao when he was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation to the complainant on the ground of medical negligence.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainants son P. Vijay Kumar aged 9 years was suffering from stomach ache. When he took him to the appellant he performed a surgical operation and charged Rs. 10,000/-. Since the operation ended in failure, he was referred to Kamineni Hospital wherein he incurred expenses of Rs. 8,000/-. Later, as per the instructions of the appellant his son was taken to different doctors which costed him Rs. 20,000/-. Later, he was referred to Nilofur hospital, Hyderabad where he spent about Rs. 10,000/-. Since the operation conducted by the appellant was a failure and he was made to spend unnecessary medical expenses, travelling and other charges, he claimed Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation.
The appellant resisted the case. While admitting that he performed the operation in his clinic on Vijay Kumar, he alleged that he was brought to his nursing home on 3.9.1997 with history of vomittings, for the last four years at the gap of 15 days in a month and later increased to 2 to 3 times a day. When the investigations were made, they were found to be in normal limits, and as such he directed barium meal test. It was conducted at Siddartha Diagnostic Services, Karimnagar. The complainant brought the report on 9.9.2007. He found there was Kochs Legion i.e., Tuberculosis of intestines. Accordingly, he was treated for T.B. There was improvement in his condition. On 3.10.2007 the patient was again brought with a complaint of severe vomitings. On examination he found repeated visible peristaltic movements in upper abdomen. When he advised exploratory lapratamy, the complainant Informed that he would come after Dassara. Therefore, he prescribed medicines. While so on 20.10.2007 the patient was again brought to his clinic in a state of severe dehydration, abdominal pain and vomittings, in view of urgency exploratory lapratamy was conducted on 21.10.2007. Since it was found that there was obstruction in duodenum and that stomach was dilated, he conducted posterior gastro-jejenostomy. Post operative treatment was given. He was relieved of vomitings and abdominal pain. He was discharged on 1.11.1997. He became normal. On 22.11.1997 he came with complaint of bilious vomittings. Dr. Bhuvaneswari, a Paediatric Surgeon was called to seek expert opinion. She suggested Berium meal. The finding was that stomach was mildly dilated. He was treated conservatively by administering medicines. When again he complained vomitings, he was referred to Kamineni Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad on 11.12.1997 for further test viz., Nuclear Isotop studies to rule out gastric atony and motility disorder. The investigations therein disclosed that post G.J. well functioning. Stoma observed with duodenal polyp at D1, D2 junction nature. However, the complainant did not agree for getting the Nuclear Isotop test and requested for discharge. Accordingly, the patient was discharged. Later the complainant consulted one Dr. B. Roopshankar, Children specialist of Karimnagar. When he was contacted, he suggested him to go to Kamineni Hospital and later to Nilofur hospital where he was given conservative treatment. On that he became normal. Later, again he was brought to Nilofur hospital where they diagnosed that it was a motility disorder of the stomach as well as duodenum. They diverted the bile flow and food from duodenum first part to jejunum by doing duodeno jejunostomy to prevent bile entering into the stomach through major surgery. This fact was concealed by the complainant. Since he took treatment at Kamineni and Nilofur hospitals where they did not allege that the surgery performed by him was a failure, and on the other hand shows that the said operation was successful, he should not be find fault with.
There was no negligence on his part.
Now the complainants son was recovered. He has taken all the precautions and utmost care in treating the patient. The complainant was filed to defame his status in the society. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 to A10. Refuting his evidence the appellant doctor filed his affidavit evidence.
The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the appellant has committed deficiency in service in administering anti tuberculosis drugs though he was not suffering from tuberculosis of any type. It awarded an amount of Rs.
20,000/- towards compensation.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum had failed to consider the report Ex. A4 Barium Meal follow through report disclosing Kochs Lesion which means tuberculosis disease. Since the patient was treated as out patient the question of maintaining case sheet will not arise. Exs. A1 & A2 would show as to the exact treatment given by him. There was no deficiency in service on his part.
In fact due to his continuous guidance the patient was cured. Therefore he prayed that the appeal be allowed.
It is an admitted fact that the complainants son aged about 9 years had a history of vomittings for the past four years besides history of deafness and inability to speak. When he was brought to the appellant, he was diagnosed as Kochs abdomen meaning tuberculosis. This was confirmed by Barium meal report. He was given treatment accordingly by prescribing medicines. In Davidsonss Principles and Practice of Medicine (17th Edition) at page 361 under Table 6.13 the medicines to be prescribed is as follows :
Drug Clinical Setting Dosage Rifampicin Children 10 20 mg The same drug was prescribed by the appellant. Therefore the finding of the Dist. Forum that there was no tuberculosis and treating the patient with anti-tuberculosis medicines constitutes deficiency in service has no basis. When Ex. A4 Barium Meal report categorically mentions that 3 small segments of Ilial loops shows mild norrowed without obstruction. Kochs Lesion. It cannot be said that it was not tuberculosis. Since after conducting the required tests the drug was administered, he cannot be attributed with wring diagnosis. It was not as though it was not contained.
Admittedly, even after one month when the vomitings could not be contained the appellant performed the Laparatamy and Gastro Jujunostomy. Subsequently when he developed vomitings he was admitted in Kamineni Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad.
After conducting all the tests there was categorical mention vide Ex. A6 that in the month of October, 1997 the patient underwent Laparotomy and Gastrojejunostomy. After surgery the child is not vomiting the food that he takes. Again Barium meal test was conducted wherein it was found dilated stomach, Duodenal polyp at D1-D2, nature junction. Endoscopy was also conducted which showed status of post G.J. and alkaline deudonal appeared normal. Subsequently, he had taken treatment in Nilofur Hospital where all the tests were conducted, medicines were prescribed. He was even referred to Mahaveer Hospital for Elisa Test and other tests. He was referred to Dr. P. Nagabhushan Rao a professor. He prescribed medicines. On 5.1.1998 again Barium meal test was conducted. The very same medicines prescribed by the appellant were prescribed by the doctor at Niloufer Hospital under Ex. A10. None of the doctors who had examined subsequent to the operation conducted by the appellant mentioned that the operation was a failure. At the cost of repetition we may state that Ex. A6 discharge summary issued by Kamineni Hospital shows that the surgery was successful. His persistent complaint has nothing to do with the operation conducted by the appellant.
It is not known how the complainant could come to the conclusion that the treatment given by the appellant was wrong. When the very complainant has filed Ex. A4 which shows that there was Koches Lesion and the appellant had treated for the said ailment evidenced under Ex. A1, it cannot be said he was diagnosed and treated wrongly.
The complainant did not examine any of the doctors attached to Kamineni Hospital or Niloufer Hospital and other hospitals where the patient was treated to prove that the treatment given by the appellant was incorrect. It is not as though the appellant had stopped treatment when the patient had persistent vomitings. He referred him to a hospital where super specialists were attending. Picking up the appellant out of all the doctors, who treated his son, cannot be appreciated. Obviously, he intended to prove that diagnosing Koches Lesion and treating him for tuberculosis was wrong. We repeat that the appellant had given treatment when it was found that the patient was suffering from tuberculosis of intestines. Absolutely, there is no basis for the complainant to file a complaint against the appellant. There is no evidence that treatment was not found to be wrong, and in fact having given the very same drugs, the Dist. Forum did not consider this aspect of the matter. Just by mere conjuncture without even considering as to the actual ailment suffered by the complainant, it had come to a conclusion that the treatment given by the appellant was wrong. Therefore the order cannot be sustained. The Dist. Forum has erroneously concluded that the patient was wrongly diagnosed and that the treatment given was equally wrong. We do not see any merits in the complaint.
In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case no costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER Dt. 10. 11. 2008.