M.G.Meena,

W/o H.N.Vasudev,

Aged about 34 yrs,

R/at No.155,

Brahmin Street,

Doddaballapur,

…. Complainant.

V/s



The Managing Director,

Janatha Nursing Home,

Soundarya Mahal Road,

Doddaballapur.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-

This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs only) from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-

2. The Opposite Party is running a Nursing Home in the name and style of JANATHA NURSING HOME at Doddaballapur. The complainant was admitted to the said nursing home at about 11.30 p.m. on 16/12/2007 as she had sustained crush injuries on her right upper arm while working on twisting machine at her house.

She was forced to get herself discharge from the nursing home on 17/12/2007 as her condition went worse. While discharging her from the nursing home, the Opposite Party collected Rs.6,000/- as medical bill under various heads and charging Rs.5,000/- towards surgery though in-fact no surgery was done. The treatment given in the nursing home was not proper. If proper treatment was given, she could not have been forced to shift from the nursing home of the Opposite Party to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore and from there to P.D.Hinduja Sindhe Hospital, Bangalore where she was treated conservatively and she underwent Split Skin Grafting on 31/01/2008. In the nursing home of the Opposite Party no proper treatment was given, she was neglected and was made to pay surgery charges even-though no surgery was done.

She was made to suffer pain and mental agony besides monitory loss which amounts to deficiency of service. On account of medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party, she suffered a lot mentally, physically and financially. She issued legal notice dated 07/03/2008 calling upon to compensate her towards pain and mental agony suffered and the expenses incurred during her stay in the nursing home of the Opposite Party. In spite of receipt of notice, the Opposite Party neither complied with the demand nor gave any reply. Hence, the complaint.

3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complainant has not stated true facts and has misquoted all the facts in order to claim compensation. The complainant was brought to the nursing home on 16/12/2007 at about 11.30 p.m. when she was in a severe Vasovagal and Hemorrhagic shock state of mind, was pale as she had sustained crush injuries over the Posteromedial aspect of right upper arm and the Axilla Avulsed skin flap was seen hanging from the injured area. The under-lying vessels like axillary artery veins, terminal parts of brachialplexus and a brachial vessels seen axillary artery had heamatoma distal pulses were not felt.

Axillary vein was torn partially and the underlying structures and muscles were crushed and unhealthy and were exposed to atmosphere. After admission to the nursing home, treatment was given for nearly two and half hours and thereafter the complainant was shifted to ward at about 8.00 a.m. on 17/12/2007. The complainant was advised skin grafting after observation and healing-up of the wound, but as against the said medical advise and even without telling the doctor who had operated her, the complainant got herself discharged from the nursing home and got admitted to Bowring hospital on the ground that her relatives are in Bangalore and she is not financially sound to meet the expenditures and therefore she prefers to take treatment at Government Hospital. Accordingly she got herself discharged against medical advice and took treatment at Bowring Hospital. Having got discharged from the nursing home against the medical advice, the complainant cannot attribute any malafides or negligence against the Opposite Party.

The sum of Rs.5,000/- charged to the complainant is far less as compared to the magnitude of the injuries sustained by her and the operation took about two and half hours. Ignoring these aspects and the timely treatment given, the complainant has come up with the complainant making allegation against Opposite Party. The injuries sustained by the complainant were very severe and the same had been operated for about tow and half hours. Therefore, the complainant cannot make any allegation against the Opposite Party. The complaint is filed to make wrongful gain. But for the timely treatment given by the Opposite Party, the complainant would have lost right arm. The Opposite Party gave proper treatment at the proper time by taking risk. The allegation that the complainant was forced to get herself discharged from nursing home on 17/12/2007 as her condition became worse is denied.

The complainant got herself discharged from the nursing home on the ground that she is facing financial problems and her relatives at Bangalore would admit her to Bowring Hospital. The allegation that no surgery has been done in the nursing home is false. But for the surgery conducted for about two and half hours in the mid night, the complainant would have lost her right arm or would have sustained permanent disability and the same have been saved by the treatment given in the nursing home. The nursing home was established about 30 years ago, it has built a very good reputation and has got good equipments and professionally experienced doctors to give treatment and as such the allegations in the complaint are far from truth. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and as such the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4. In support of the respective contentions, both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments on both side.

5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether medical negligence amounts to be deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our finding to both points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. The fact that the complainant had sustained a crush injury while working in twisting machine on 16/12/2007 and therefore she was admitted to the nursing home of the Opposite Party at 11.30 p.m. on that day and that she got herself discharged from nursing home on the very next day namely on 17/12/2007 and thereafter took treatment in Bowring Hospital and P.D.Hinduja Sindhe Hospital, Bangalore is not disputed. As per the copy of the discharge summery produced by the Opposite Party, the complainant was admitted to the nursing home at 11.50 a.m. on 16/12/2007 and was discharged at 12.00 p.m. on 17/12/2007. In the discharge summary, the condition of the complainant at the time of admission to the nursing home is given as under:-

“On examination, patent is in vaso vagal shock, Pulse 108 per minute. B.P.80/60. There is evidence of crush injury with lacerated wound with avulsion of skin top with severe bleeding and haemotoma. (Investigation done. Urine analysis “ HB percentage GRBS.) over right axilla and right upper arm. Distal Pulses : Not felt.

The treatment details are given as under:-

“ Treatment given: Foot end elevated, IV fluid started at two places. Injection Mephentene given. Haemaccel started. Resuscitative measures given. Local anaesthesia given. Taken to OT. Under local anaesthesia under a sceptic condition. Wound debraidement done and with a drain wound cloth in layers. Partially torn axillary vein sutured”.

From the description of the injury as given in the discharge summary, it is seen that the complainant had sustained severe crush injury and therefore proper treatment was given to her in the nursing home. It is also mentioned in the discharge summary that on 17/12/2007 the patient was taken to Bangalore against the medical advice. Admittedly the complainant was in the nursing home of the Opposite Party for about 12 hours from 11.50 p.m. on 16/12/2007 to 12.00 noon on 17/12/2007 and she got discharged from the nursing home against the medical advice. Except alleging that her condition became worst in the nursing home and the treatment given was not proper,

the complainant has not explained what was the medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party in giving treatment to her. No expert evidence is adduced by the complainant to show that the treatment given to the complainant in the nursing home was not in accordance with the accepted medical practice. In the absence of expert evidence the bald allegations in the complaint that no proper treatment was given or that the complainant was neglected in the nursing home is not sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party in giving treatment to the complainant.

It is not as if the complainant stayed in the nursing home for a long period and in spite of it there was no improvement in her condition. Admittedly the complainant stayed in the nursing home for about 12 hours and got herself discharged against the medical advice. That being so, based on the bald and vague allegations, it is not possible to make out deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in giving treatment to the complainant. No doubt in the hospital bill, the Opposite Party has charged Rs.5,000/- towards surgery charges. According to the complainant no surgery was done on her in the nursing home. But in the version it is contended that for treatment of the crush injury, surgery was done for about two and half hours on the complainant.

In the discharge summary also it is stated that the complainant was taken to operation theatre and under local anaesthesia wound debraidement was done, the partial torn axillary vein sutured. If that is so, the contention of the complainant that without performing any surgery, the nursing home charged Rs.5,000/- cannot be up-held. If It is the contention of the complainant that a sum of Rs.5,000/- charged towards surgery is exorbitant, the same cannot be decided in these proceedings. The sum charged towards service rendered, cannot be a subject matter of Consumer Disputes, because, in these proceedings, the charges for a particular service cannot be fixed. Thus, from the material on record, we are unable to make out any medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party and therefore hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following:-



-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.