State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs.Lalita Ramesh Jain vs Talesara Hospital & Anr. on 13 April, 2012
UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/08/118
1. MRS.LALITA RAMESH JAIN
A/3, SUKHWANI
GARDEN,
DAPOLI, PUNE
Maharastra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. TALESARA
HOSPITAL
AT PLOT NO.6 S.NO.6/A/1,NEXT TO GANGA
COMPLEX,
AIR
PORT ROAD,YERWADA,PUNE
Maharastra
2. DR JAYANTILAL M TALESARA OF TALESARA HOSPITAL
PLOT NO 6, S NO 6/A/1 NEXT TO GANGA
COMPLEX, AIR PORT ROAD,
YERWADA, PUNE
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.D.M. Gupte, Advocate for the Complainant.
Mr.Rahul Gandhi, Advocate for the Opponents.
O R D E R Per Mr.Narednra Kawde Honble Member:(1)
This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service vis--vis medical negligence on the part of the Opponent No.1 Hospital and the treating doctor Dr.Jayantilal M. Talesara.(2)
Undisputed facts are that the Complainant approached the Opponents after she met with an accident on 24.07.2006 for seeking surgical aid. Complainant was admitted for surgical aid and treatment of facture to her right hand.
She was admitted on the same date i.e. on 24th July, 2006 for the treatment and discharged on 3rd August, 2006. The Complainant was operated on 26.07.2006 by the Opponent No.2 along with other doctors.
Prior to operation the Opponent No.2 carried out required investigations of the Complainant patient. Post operative care was ensured till discharge of the Complainant patient on 3rd August, 2006. Complainant was advised to visit for follow-up after five days, ten days, three weeks and six weeks after discharge from the hospital. The Complainant patient visited the Opponent hospital doctor on 7th August, 2006, 14th August 2006 and 22nd August, 2006. On 4th August, 2006 the pre and post-operative x-rays of the affected hand were also carried out. During the follow-up visits of the Complainant patient proper dressing of the plaster slab was carried out as and when required and it was found that the wound was OK with mild pain and right elbow region and finger movement was recorded as good. Wound dressing with plaster slab was reopened and the wound was completely healed as was noticed in the follow-up visit on 14th August, 2006. The Complainant-patient had a follow-up visit on 18.09.2006 and made a statement that she was fallen due to epileptic convulsion resulting into broken plaster cast with severe pain in right elbow. Therefore, the broken plaster was removed, x-ray was carried out, elbow plaster cast was applied fresh, new plaster slab as a temporary support was given, x-ray was carried out and Complainant patient was advised to take the opinion of Dr.Rajeev Arora as a Senior Orthopedic Surgeon for further management.(3)
Complainant-patient is a house wife. The case of the Complainant is that as she was slipped from two wheeler resulting into fracture of the elbow of a right hand. She was looking for the best hospital surgical care and therefore, approached the Opponents for treatment. After examination of the Complainant by the Opponent No.2 Doctor, she was prescribed medicines and she was under the observation in the Opponent Hospital during the entire period of admission till discharge and on account of medicine expenses of `55,000/- were incurred in addition to subsidiary expenditure. As advised by the Opponent Doctor, she regularly visited to hospital for follow-up and the Opponent Doctor informed the Complainant that the hand would be normal if the Complainant continues to take the medicines for a period of at least one year or so. As she could not get the relief even after operation and follow-up she approached other Doctors and after examining right hand it was stated that the fractured bones of the right hand of the Complainant was not aligned properly before putting the plaster on her hand and as a result, the fractured ends got fused together in an abnormally twisted manner and the Complainant had to undergo unbearable pains during initial days and the other Doctors also advised that the bones have fused together and nothing could be done to reverse the damage done to the right elbow.(4)
Further it is stated by the Complainant that her right hand is now completely impaired having no grip to hold the hands or to do any activity with the help of right hand. Even she deprived of discharging her the private functions as a woman.
She is compelled to avail the services of a maid servant for household matter and to look after her for which a monthly sum of `6,000/- by way of wages are required to be paid to the housemaid. She also lost the earning of around `1,00,000/- to `1,20,000/- annually as she was engaged in the business of beading and the surgical procedure carried out by the Opponent No.2 Doctor on her right elbow rendered her as a destitute as the Opponent Doctor was reckless and grossly negligent to carry out the surgical procedure. Complainant claimed compensation of `28,20,000/- for loss suffered by her on account of gross deficiency in service, humiliation, mental agony, loss of business and physical torture.(5)
The Opponents have denied the allegations of the Complainant by filing written version and affidavit. The Opponent No.2 Doctor has stated that Complainant met with an accident on 24th July, 2006 with fracture to her right elbow and she approached the Opponents for the best possible treatment. The Complainant patient was admitted on the same day and was advised to undergo surgery for the fracture. Prior to surgery all the required medical tests were carried out and only after confirmation that the Complainant patient was fit for operation the operation was carried out on 26.07.2006 by the team of expert doctors thereby bones were internally fixed by plate and screws accurately. Before discharge due diligence care and the entire protocol of treatment as required in the case of the Complainant patient was strictly adhered to. At the time of discharge all the hospital papers along with x-rays were handed over to the Complainants husband. After operation x-ray was carried out which showed good improvement in the patient. Complainant patient when visited on 18.09.2006 as a follow-up it was stated by her that she was fallen due to epileptic convulsions, resulting into loosening of screws and with displacement of fracture as it was evident in the x-ray carried out. Therefore, the Complainant patient was advised to seek second opinion of Doctor Rajeev Arora, Senior Orthopedic Surgeon for further management. However, the Complainant patient did not heed the advice. The Opponent No.2 has denied that there was any negligence on his part or on the part of his hospital staff in attending the Complainant patient.
The Complainant patient was a known case history of epilepsy and she was on tablet tegrital for quite long time.
Epilepsy as it was disclosed by the Complainant patient was properly taken care of prior to her operation and also after the discharge from the hospital by prescription of adequate dose of the tablet tegrital and denied the allegations that the known case of epilepsy episode of the Complainant patient was not taken cognizance of and further stated that the Complainant has not adduced any tangible evidence to establish the allegations of negligence on the part of the Opponent Doctor or adduced any evidence to establish deficiency in service incurred by the Opponents.
(6)Heard the Ld.Advcotes of the parties. It is submitted by the Ld.Advocate of the Complainant that during the operation bones were not set properly and adequate care was not taken by the Opponents Doctors. The pre-existing disease of epilepsy was not taken cognizance of and wrongly attributed accidental fall on 18.09.2006 to the epilepsy attack with overweight of the Complainant patient. The Complainant patient did not get the required relief as was expected after carrying out the surgery. Even though blood pressure of the Complainants patient at the time of accident was not normal, ignoring this aspect the Complainant patient was taken to the operation theatre. At the time of discharge on 3rd August, 2006 without taking any precaution the discharge was given by the Opponent hospital. The Complainant patient never met with an accident again on 18.09.2006 as alleged by the Opponents due to epilepsy attack and there is no evidence on record as such. The Complainant patient has been rendered 42% disable as certified by the Government medical authorities.
(7)The Ld.Advocate for the Opponents submitted that there was no nexus of disability with the operations carried out as strict protocol of the treatment was adhered to by the Opponent with the help of expert team of the orthopedic. There is no cogent or tangible proof placed on record by the Complainant to establish the alleged medical negligence leading to fact of alleged deficiency in service.
The patient was overweight and the OPD record reveals that while coming to hospital for follow-up visited on 18.09.2006 the Complainant patient was fallen due to epilepsy attack as stated by the Complainant herself.
(8)On perusal of the record placed before us, no tangible evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint is produced except her own affidavit and the affidavit of her husband Shri Ramesh Pukharaj Jain. The Complainants averment that she had consulted other expert orthopedic surgeons who opined that there is an error in joint of the bones of the elbow of the right hand and the wrong treatment was prescribed to the Complainant patient and no curative steps can now be taken out to redress the wrong done during the surgery is not supported by documentary evidence as required under section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Certificate issued by Medical Board of B.J. Medical College & Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, certifying 42% disability of the operated hand, but the nexus between the surgery or lack of medical care leading to disability is not proved on record by the Complainant. No evidence of consulting orthopedic surgeons to show that the abnormality is a post operative complication led on record. Hospital case papers reveal that Complainant was embedded with epilepsy attack and appropriate prescription of tegrital was advised by the Opponents and also there is Complainants own admission about fall on 18.09.2006, therefore, submission of Ld.Advocate of the Complainant contrary to this fact is not acceptable. In the absence of cogent or tangible documentary evidence produced by the Complainant and in the facts and circumstances narrated above, we find that the complaint is devoid of merit, as Complainant failed to establish medical negligence leading to deficiency of services against Opponents. We hold accordingly and proceed to pass the order as below O R D E R
(i) Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 13th April, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep