Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

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.