National Consumer Disputes Redressal
T.V. Sukumaran vs Joy K. Cheriyan (Dr.) on 13 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ312(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging a case of medical negligence on the part of the respondents.
2. Undisputedly the facts of the case are that on 14th August, 1990, the appellant/ complainant on getting high fever running up to 104", reported to the respondent/ opposite party, who diagnosed the ailment as typhoid and asked the complainant to take pills, which he took with great difficulty. On 19.8.1990 the appellant had some obstruction in urination and the doctor helped him urinate with the help of a tube installed in him. On 20th August, 90 morning, he asked for discharge and got admitted in Perumpavoor Taluk Hospital. During the night of 21st August, 1990, he fell down as he was completely exhausted and after some examination next morning, the doctors from this hospital referred him to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam where he was admitted on 22nd Augugust, 90 and he had treatment from this Hospital upto 22nd September, 90. When he was getting relief, he went to Mary Matha Hospital and Taluk Hospital at Perumpavoor and remained there till 12th November. It is appellant's allegation that some of the doctors at Medical College Hospital suggested that his problem emanates from the deficiency in initial treatment given to him. On 12th November, 1990, he consulted Vydiamatam Astha Vydian Narayanan Namboothiri. He also stated that his problem is on account of deficiency in the initial treatment. In March 1991, he came to the pharmacy and underwent 'Panchkarma Treatment' and he has to spent Rs. 500 per week and he spent Rs. 10,000 for 'Panchkarma Treament'. It is in these circumstances, alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondent, he filed a complaint claiming Rs. 5,00,000 from the respondent. Opposite party filed his reply/written version; affidavits were also filed. The complainant was cross-examined and based on material on record, the State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant has failed to substantiate the allegation of medical negligence on the part of the appellant/ complainant.
3. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. A replication was filed by the respondent/opposite party to which a replication has also been filed by the appellant and has also sent his one page argument.
4. We perused the material on record and also heard the learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party.
5. After perusing the material on record, we find that there are two basic allegations against the respondent/opposite party one, that is, as per Medical College Hospital, there was deficiency in the initial treatment given to him and secondly, the doctor is not qualified to handle such a case.
6. Dealing with the first plea first, we find that not a scrap of evidence in any manner, has been produced to substantiate the allegations that the Medical College or any one else stated or found any deficiency in the initial treatment. State Commission has taken pains to state in its order that during the cross-examination of the complainant, he stated, "doctor did not definitely say but it may be due to that..." When given an opportunity to examine any doctor of the Medical College, to prove his allegation, he failed on this count as well. The cases of medical negligence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, fall in a different category as allegations on medical negligence are not to be treated lightly and secondly specific act of negligence has to be proved, challenging the line of treatment given by a doctor. Before us, there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that the line of treatment given by the respondent/ opposite party to the complainant was not the correct line. In the replication and also in written arguments, a faint effort is made to suggest that the record of the respondent was not produced but the treatment given to him must have been with the complainant/appellant himself and he would carry along with at the time of discharge. It is he who should have produced that. In any way, there is no request on record that the record was sought and was not produced. In view of above, we find that there is no specific allegation of medical negligence and much less proved by the complainant by any expert witness or medical literature, in the absence of which we find no merit in this plea.
7. Coming to the second plea, we find that there is a degree of M.B.B.S. which according to the appellant does not carry the seal of the office of Chancellor. But it is duly signed. Be that as it may, the registration certificate dated 26.5.1981, issued by the Registrar of Travancore Cochin Council' permitting to practise in 'Modern Medicine' is also on record. It is given prior to holding of the convocation. The record clearly shows that he passed the examination in 1981 and after doing his house job, etc., the degree was given some time later but that, in any case, does not take away the veracity of the Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Travancore Cochin Council, permitting the respondent/O.P. to practice in 'Modern Medicine'.
8. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we see no merit in the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant, hence dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.