State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.Bhaskar Reddy, S/O.Pitchi Reddy, vs Dr.Isaac Newton Rajkumar, Orthopaedic ... on 28 March, 2014
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.SAMBANDAM MEMBER F.A.NO.14/2009 (As against the order in CC.No.128/2000 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South) DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2014 R.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Pitchi Reddy, T6, Gokul Apartments, M/s.S.Natarajan 15, Jagathambal Street, Counsel for T Nagar, Chennai 17.
Appellant / Complainant
-vs-
1. Dr.Isaac Newton Rajkumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon, H 47 B IAS Officers Quarters M/s.D.Bright Joseph Kalashetra Colony, Counsel for Besant Nagar, Chennai 90. Respondent / 1st Opp.party
2. St.Isabels Institute of Orthopaedics M/s.S.Muthu Venkataraman And Trauma, St.Isabels Hospital Counsel for 18, Oilver Road, Chennai 4.
Respondent / 2nd Opp.party The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum Dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.128/2000, dated 29.10.2008.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.02.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
-2-2. The complainant met with a road traffic accident on 02.08.1998 at Chennai and has sustained fracture Both Bone Right Leg with compound injury. Right knee with fracture shaft femur, right knee with patellar retinacular and was admitted to 2nd opposite party hospital for treatment. The 1st opposite party treated the patient. The complainant has not sustained fracture neck of femur in right leg at the time of accident. He was treated as in patient till 26.8.1998 and then an outpatient periodically till the month of May 1999. Since the condition of the complainant deteriorated he opted for another Ortho Doctor for treatment in May 1999 who performed surgery long stem total hip replacement of his right femur. After the surgery he was noticed fracture in neck of femur in right leg. The complainant has spent Rs.2,70,000/- to another Ortho doctor. Because of the 1st opposite partys improper surgery the complainant was met to cripple and bed ridden. Though the fracture in neck of femur have been diagnosed the opposite parties have not treated for the said fracture in perfect manner. It is nothing but medical negligence. The X-ray of the complainant taken prior to surgery that is on 14.8.1988 would show that the complainant has not sustained any fracture neck of femur right leg but the X-ray taken after surgery would show that he had a fracture neck of femur in right leg. Hence, the complainant issued a notice claiming Rs.4,50,000/- for medical negligence caused by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties 1 & 2 denied the allegations of the complainant in their separate written version filed before the District Forum and contended that the complainant was already treated by some other doctor for which Dr.L.Prakash and -3- another Orthopedic Doctor issued certificate even at the time of admission on 03.08.1998 at the 2nd opposite party hospital and the surgeries were performed in stages as per procedure and there is no deficiency of service on their part and the complainant was discharged after full satisfaction from the 2nd opposite partys Hospital and thereby no deficiency of service.
4. The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry by accepting the contentions of the opposite parties, the District Forum dismissing the complaint by observing that there was no negligence and the complainant has not proved the negligence on the part of the opposite parties in treating the complainant by acceptable medical evidence.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant has come forward with this appeal contenting that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint by concluding that the appellant failed to prove the deficiency with necessary evidence is wrong. Since the document under Ex.A6 itself is sufficient to prove regarding the same and thereby since the complainant made the allegations of the medical negligence that the 1st opposite party ignored the existence of fractured neck of right femur in right leg holding that non examination of the Dr.Prakash is very fatal for the case by the District Forum is wrong and the complaint is to be allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum.
6. We have heard the arguments of the appellant and 2nd Respondent since there was no appearance of 1st Respondent inspite of sufficient chance given for his -4- representation the order being passed on merits without the arguments of the 1st Respondent. We have heard both sides arguments and perused the materials records in which the complainant alleged that he met with an accident on 2.8.1998 and has sustained fracture both bone Right Leg with Gr.III-A Compound Injury, Right knee with fracture shaft of Femur, Right with patellar retinacular and was admitted to the 2nd opposite partys Hospital for treatment and the 1st opposite party treated the patient till 26.8.1998 and then as out patient periodically till the month of May 1999 and after that the complainant opted for another Ortho Doctor for treatment in May 1999, who performed surgery for total replacement for his right femur. After the surgery he noticed that fracture in neck of femur in right leg which he had alleged that this fracture only because of improper surgery by the 1st opposite party which made him to became crippled and bed ridden. This was not diagnosed and treated by the opposite parties in perfect manner and thereby the complainant alleged medical negligence against the opposite party.
The opposite parties contended that the complainant sustained with multiple fractures sustained due to road accident involved in the knee and leg and other areas with loss of blood and bone were completely exposed. The 1st opposite party performed surgery on 4.8.1998 an open surgery to the knee joint and second surgery was done on 14.8.1998 and open retrograde posterio lateral approach. The Retrograde nailing is the safest and best device admitted in the medical field and the surgery was performed in stages to treat the injuries. Regarding this the opposite parties -5- contended that even in the certificate issued by one Dr.Prakash and other doctors the fractured neck of right femour was already there. Per contra the complainant / appellant contended even at the time of earlier surgeries the 1st opposite party should have performed the operation simultaneously but performed the same in stages which is not correct and thereby the second fracture would not have occurred if it has have been performed at the earliest at the time of earlier surgeries. The complainant produced the certificate of Dr.L.Prakash Dated 26.5.1999 Ex.B4 and he was admitted on 11.5.99 and date of operation was mentioned as 12.5.99 and date of discharge was mentioned as 18.5.99 by mentioning the diagnosis that Fracture shaft of right femur with fracture neck of right femur with old fracture tibia and fibula and further stated that the patient will need a surgical intervention on his knee for mobilization and the operation will be performed in about six months time. On perusal of the opposite parties documents Ex.B10 and A3 it is found that on 4.8.1998 under General anesthesia in right knee wound injury patella retinacular repair done and after wound settled well on 14.8.1998 open reduction and internal fixation IM nailing done and on 22.8.98 open reduction and BK cast application done and post operative period uneventful and once again the patient was admitted for the complaint of earlier injuries and found lacerated injury extending a right knee pleasanta and other punctured wound, Lacerated wound were present and treatment were given and discharged on 26.8.1998 and subsequently it appears, it was again attended on 1.12.1998 and another certificate issued by Dr.Prakash under -6- Ex.B12 dated 18.5.1999 shows that the complainant was admitted on 11.5.99 and was operated on 12.5.99 and discharged on 18.5.99 for the fracture shaft of right femur with fracture neck of right femur with old fracture tibia and fibula in which the history and course of the treatment was recorded as follows:
Admitted for long stem total hip replacement of his right femur. He sustained a RTA and had a combined femoral shaft and neck fracture which was nailed. The neck fracture failed to unite and head went into avascular necrosis.
Conocmittant tibial fracture united with conservative treatment.
Under spinal anesthesia Femoral fracture stabilized with circlage wires and a long stem hip replacement done.
Sutures removed on 14th day.
Wound clean and healed.
7. Probably because of this recording the complainant alleged due to improper surgery by the 1st opposite party this was happened. But the complainant failed to impleaded Dr.L.Prakash who had given this certificate under Ex.A6, B12 & B13 and he had performed second surgery after 2.8.98 and 14.8.98 by the 1st opposite party nearly after 9 months from the earlier surgery in order to prove that only because of the wrong surgery performed by the opposite parties alone the surgery on 12.5.99 as per Ex.B12 came to be performed and another surgery to be performed after 6 months from that date in order to set right the leg of the complainant.
8. The complainant alleged that the 1st opposite party failed to perform the operation at the first instance itself for both fractures on 4.8.98 and 14.8.98 itself as -7- it was not performed, the second fracture came to be found which made the complainant to have subsequent operation and thereby the opposite parties have negligent in their service this proves under Ex.A6 itself. Hence, there is no need for provide separate expert evident in this regard. While considering this contention and perusal of the document under Ex.A6 which should be read along with Ex.B12 and B13 and Ex.A6 in the same copy of Ex.B12 and B13 and the details of history and the course of treatment as already pointed out and were mentioned from which it is stated that the neck fracture failed to unite and head went into avascular necrosis. Conocmittant tibial fracture united with conservative treatment. From these it is clear that the alleged subsequent fracture was not attended by the opposite parties even at the time of 1st surgery could not be a correct one. The District Forum elaborately discussed with applicable rulings relating to the liability of medical attendants in performing their duties and came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove the alleged negligence or deficiency in giving treatment at the time of performing 1st surgery itself simultaneously without postponing for second surgery and with necessary expert opinion or with medical literature to disprove that the treatment already given by the 1st opposite party was wrong or mismanaged one and the District Forum observed that the non examination of Dr.Prakash would shows that the complainant has not proved the negligence on the part of the opposite parties after taking into consideration of all relevant details with which findings we have no reason to differ with. Hence, in those circumstances we -8- are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District forum in CC.No.128/2000, dated 29.10.2008.
No order as to costs in the appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER