State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Administrator vs Sivaraman, on 23 May, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 182/2006 (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/12/2005 in Case No. A.184/2002 of District Alappuzha) 1. The Adminisrator GEMS Hospital, Mavelikkara BEFORE: Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 182/2006
JUDGMENT DATED:23-05-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Administrator,
GEMS Hospital,
Court Junction, Mavelikara.
: APPELLANTS
2. Dr.P.K.Ravi,
Surgeon,
GEMS Hospital,
Court Junction, Mavelikara.
(By Adv:Sri.M.C.Suresh)
Vs.
Sivaraman,
Seejo Nivas,
Pullikkanakku.P.O, : RESPONDENT
Krishnapuram.
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in OP.A-184/02 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party/Dr.P.K.Ravi in treating the complainant for dislocation of his right shoulder. It is alleged that the complainant's right shoulder had restricted movements and he sustained physical disability at 14% and that the disability occurred only due to the medical negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party who was attached to 1st opposite party GEMS Hospital, Mavelikkara. The complainant claimed a total of Rs.4,34,000/- as compensation.
2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the complainant was treated with utmost care and caution and there was no sort of negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party in treating the complainant at 1st opposite party hospital. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and an expert doctor was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A7 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of the opposite parties, the 2nd opposite party doctor, P.K.Ravi was examined as RW1. The original in-patient record from the 1st opposite party GEMS hospital, Mavelikkara was marked as Ext.B1. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party doctor in treating the complainant at the 1st opposite party hospital. The 1st opposite party being the employer was made vicariously liable for the negligence of the 2nd opposite party. Thereby, the opposite parties 1 and 2 were made jointly and severally liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with cost of Rs.1,200/-. Hence the present appeal.
4. This State Commission was pleased to hear the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant. The counsel for the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds in the memorandum of the present appeal and canvassed for the position that the 2nd opposite party, Dr.P.K.Ravi followed the standard procedures in treating the complainant at the 1st opposite party hospital and there was no sort of negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. He also relied on the testimony of PW2, the expert doctor examined on the side of the complainant. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated:24th October 2005 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP-A-184/02. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He also relied on the testimony of RW1 to substantiate the case of the complainant regarding negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party doctor in treating the complainant at 1st opposite party hospital for the period from 27/6/2000 to 8/7/2000. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant approached the 2nd appellant/2nd opposite party, Dr.P.K.Ravi at the 1st appellant/GEMS hospital with dislocated right shoulder. The respondent/complainant was admitted in GEMS Hospital, Mavelikkara on 27/6/2000 and the dislocation of right shoulder was reduced and the right hand was strapped to chest to avoid further mobilization of the dislocated right shoulder. The strapping was removed on 8/7/2000 and the patient was discharged on that day itself with an advice to follow Physiotherapy. It is an admitted fact that on the date of discharge (8/7/2000), the respondent/complainant(patient) was having restricted movement of the dislocated right shoulder. It is also to be noted that the dislocated right shoulder became normal by 8/7/2000. On removal of the said strapping the patient was suffering from restricted movement of the right shoulder. Ext.A6 certificate dt:25/5/2002 issued by the doctor attached to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha would show that the complainant (patient) is having the permanent partial physical disability of 14%. It can be concluded that the aforesaid restricted movement of the right shoulder was a complication resulted from the dislocation of right shoulder. The aforesaid complication of the restricted movement of right shoulder happened or occurred after the treatment of the complainant by the 2nd opposite party, Dr.P.K.Ravi, for dislocation of right shoulder. The 2nd opposite party doctor has no case that the aforesaid restricted movement of right shoulder is a known complication of the dislocation. Even if the 2nd opposite party doctor has got such a case, it is for the 2nd opposite party who treated the complainant to substantiate the said case of known or accepted complication. But, there is no evidence available on record to show that the restricted movement of the right shoulder occurred due to the known complication of the dislocation to the right shoulder. Then, it is for the 2nd opposite party doctor to explain as to how the aforesaid restricted movement of the right shoulder occurred. But, the 2nd opposite party failed in offering an acceptable and cogent explanation or reasoning. Thus, it can be concluded that the aforesaid complication occurred due to the wrong procedure adopted by the 2nd opposite party in treating the complainant for the period from 27/6/2000 to 8/7/2000.
6. PW2, the Orthopedic Surgeon attached to VSM Hospital has deposed that it was incumbent upon the treating doctor to monitor the patient after giving such a strapping to avoid mobilization. It was also deposed by PW2 that it was incumbent upon the treating doctor to conduct proper investigation as to whether there was any other soft tissue injury or injuries in connection with the dislocation of the right shoulder. The materials available on record especially, Ext.B1 in-patient record would not show that any such investigation was done at the instance of the 2nd opposite party in the 1st opposite party hospital. There occurred failure on the part of the 2nd opposite party in properly monitoring the patient after reduction of the dislocation.
7. It is come out in the evidence of RW1 that he failed to take an X-ray of the dislocation after its reduction. The reason stated by RW1 is that the X-ray machine was not working. But no step is taken for getting the X-ray taken at the appropriate time. Even if it is found that the X-ray machine was under repair, it was incumbent upon the 2nd opposite party, doctor to refer the patient to some other higher centre for proper investigation and diagnosis. But, the 2nd opposite party continued the treatment of the patient for a continuous period of 11 days without conducting proper investigations. This circumstance itself would show that the 2nd opposite party was very much interested in continuing the treatment of the patient without proper investigations. It would amount to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. This circumstance would speak volumes about the greedy nature of the opposite parties in collecting money from the patient (complainant) by way of treatment charges. The aforesaid attitude shown by the opposite parties cannot be encouraged or appreciated. It deserves condemnation.
8. The 2nd opposite party doctor, P.K.Ravi was a general surgeon at the relevant time. Admittedly, he was not an orthopedic surgeon. But the reduction of the dislocation was done by the 2nd opposite party. It may be correct to say that the 2nd opposite party as a general surgeon done the necessary procedures which were emergent in nature. But it was the bounden duty of the 2nd opposite party to refer the patient to a higher centre where orthopedic surgeon is available. But in the present case, the 2nd opposite party continued the treatment of the complainant (patient) for a continuous period from 27/6/2000 to 8/7/2000. This would also amount to medical negligence amounting to deficiency of service.
9. RW1 has deposed that the 1st opposite party hospital was not having the infrastructure facilities for subjecting the patient for MRI scan, CT scan or mylogram. The evidence of RW1 would show that the complainant as patient was in need of such investigations for detecting any other soft tissue injury involved in the right shoulder dislocation. Even in such a situation, the 2nd opposite party was not prepared to refer the patient (complainant) to a higher centre for proper investigation, diagnosis and treatment. Thus in all respects, the opposite parties were negligent in treating the complainant who was aged 47 years in the year 2000. Because of the aforesaid negligence and deficiency of service the complainant became permanently disabled. The opposite parties put the life of the complainant in darkness by making him unable to eke his livelihood as a bus conductor. Considering all these aspects of the case, the Forum below can be justified in finding the opposite parties negligent and deficient in rendering service. The Forum below has rightly awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant and the opposite parties were made jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and a cost of Rs.1,200/-. This State Commission is pleased to endorse the aforesaid findings and conclusions arrived at by the Forum below. Thus, the present appeal can be considered as one without merits and the same deserves nothing but dismissal.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated:24/10/2005 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP-A:184/02 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VL.
[ Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN] PRESIDING MEMBER