BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 19th day of December 2023.
PRESENT:
Shri. D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member
C.C. No.18/2019
Complainant
Dr.Lakshmi Priya N., Manager (MSP), ITI Ltd., K.P.Vallon Road, Padam Stop, Kochi-20, Kadavanthra, Kochi-20
Vs.
Opposite party
Dr.Sheela Sadashivan, Ernakulam Medical Centre, Hospital, N.H. Bypass, Kochi-682 028
(Adv. George Cherian Karipparambil, Karipparambil Associates, H.B. 48,
Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682 036)
O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
This consumer complaint is filed by Dr.Lakshmi Priya N, Manager, (MSP) ITI Ltd K.P.Vallon Road, Kochi alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. The opposite party in this case is Dr.Sheela Sadasivan, who is a Gynaecologist at Ernakulam Medical Centre Hospital. The complainant alleges that the complainant approached the opposite party Doctor on 24.01.2018 ie., 4 days after her marriage for treatment of bleeding and pain occurred due to intercourse with her husband Dr.Regu Raman. The opposite party Doctor referred her for HIV test without explaining the cause and had not referred her husband for the same test. The opposite party doctor referred the complainant to follicular study by putting wrong date and issued a certificate to her husband without her presence on 21.03.2018 by putting the date as 24.01.2018 which was for the purpose of getting divorcé for him, alleges the complainant.
It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant went to Ernakulam Medical Centre with her husband on 24.01.2018 for pain/bleeding after her first intercourse. But Dr.Sheela Sadashivan had behaved to her in an unfair way and thereby the life of the complainant became damaged irreparably which routed to apply for divorce which created severe mental pain and agony to the complainant. The complainant thereafter enquired with the PRO EMC about this and she harassed the complainant by not providing the medical records and not allowed even the complainant to see the opposite party Doctor. Further the complainant alleges that due to the lack of merit of treatment and medical negligence, her personal life became irreparably damaged and her husband applied for divorce which created mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The complainant therefore approached this Commission seeking for getting relief of Rs.4.95 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony, harassment and unfair trade practice from the opposite party.
2) Notice
Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3) Version of the opposite party
The opposite party stated that the complainant consulted the opposite party along with her husband on 24.01.2018. She was a patient consulted with the complaint of difficulty for intercourse. On consultation the couple informed that their marriage was on 19.01.2018 and they were anxious to conceive because of their advancing age. The complainant informed that her LMP was on 14.01.2018. On local examination the complainant was not allowing vaginal examination. There was 1° perineal tear and inter gluteal region skin abrasion. Further examination was not allowed by the complainant. Hence the opposite party made a provisional diagnosis Vaginismus and advised for examination under general anesthesia and hymenectomy if needed. Accordingly prescribed ointment T Bact, Sitz Bath with Bitadin solution. Further advised Folfit (Folic Acid) – peri conception vitamin for 30 days for a healthy baby (which is given 3 months prior to pregnancy and during first 3 months of pregnancy), Tab. Oroferxt for 30 days (observing mild pallor). Since the couple were anxious to conceive at the earliest the referral form for ultra sound follicular study was issued. The ultra sound follicular study was requested to access the status of ovulation. Since the provisional diagnosis of Vaginismus and the advice was for examination under general anesthesia and hymenectomy if needed the opposite party has also ordered the pre surgical screening of HIV- Rapid, HBs Ag-Rapid, HCV –Rapid along with other blood tests which were the pre requisites for any surgical procedure. All these were explained to the couple and the complainant voluntarily gave blood for the tests. The HIV –Rapid, HBs Ag –Rapid, HCV – Rapid, the results were negative. Whereas thereafter the complainant lost follow up.
On 21.03.2018 complainant’s husband came alone and requested for treatment details on the pretext of treatment elsewhere and the same was given. But due in an inadvertent omission the date in the treatment certificate was given as 24.01.2018. This being the true particulars of treatment and the certificate was given the entire contrary allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service alleged against the opposite party are absolutely false and stoutly denied by the opposite party. The further allegation that due to lack of correct treatment, medical negligence, unfair trade practice the personal life of the complainant is under turmoil, irreparable damage and her husband applied for divorce etc are absolutely false and stoutly denied by the opposite party. Complainant has furnished copy of the divorce petition filed under Section 13 (1) (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed before the Hon’ble Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, which would go to show that the husband has applied for divorce due to the cruelty of the complainant herein.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced Exbt.A1 to A6 and the opposite party had produced Exbt.B1. The complainant was examined in box and depositions are recorded.
Exbt.A1 is an admission card and copy of medical record. Exbt.A2 is a copy of complaint of H.M.O.P No/2018 of the Subordinate Judge Udumelpet. Exbt.A3 is also a copy of the court order. Exbt.A4 a receipt. Exbt.A5 is also a copy of FIR. Exbt.A6 is a copy of FIR of Palarivattom Police Station.
Exbt.B1 is the original case sheet and C1 is the report of the expert Commissioner (Doctor deputed from District Hospital Ernakulam.
5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
- Point No. (i)
The Commission upon going through the complaint, evidence produced from either side and also the version filed by the opposite party has noticed that the complainant had approached the opposite party on 24.01.2018 for treatment for pain. The opposite party is a Gynaecologist at Ernakulam Medical Centre (EMC). Here the questing to be answered in the case is that whether the complainant had undergone any deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party Doctor in treatment or otherwise. The Commission therefore decided to obtain the opinion of an expert Doctor in this case since the Commission do not have medical skill to analyse the case of a Gynaecologist’s examination and report. The Expert thus appointed by the Commission from the panel of doctors received from the District medical hospital Ernakulam had reported that from the treatment details shown in the medical records, it can be seen that in the treatment of the case standard procedures has been followed by the Doctor which is copied down below: (The report of the Doctor is marked as C1 along with the evidence).
“Regarding the diagnosis, it is relevant to point out that Vaginismus is a painful spasm of the vagina during attempted coitus which can be primary or secondary in nature. Primary vaginismus is not associated with any organic cause but may be psychosexual in origin. Secondary vaginismus may be due to local painful lesions like vulvitis or narrow intoritus. For the effective treatment psycho therapy is essential for both partners. Treatment may prolong for few weeks as regular use of dilators may be necessary. Surgery may also be indicated if there is a tight hymen. (Ref: Chapter 19 in the text book of Gynaecology by Dr.Sheila Balakrishnan, Professor and Head of Reproductive Medicine, Govt.Medical College, Trivandrum-3rd Edition and DANFORH’S Obstetrics and Gynaecology -10th edition)”.
At the time of examination of the complainant in box, the complainant deposed that her husband who is a doctor collaborated with the opposite party doctor and had forged the documents by incorporating false date of consultation ie., date was recorded as 01.01.2018 instead of putting the date as 24.01.2018 the actual date of consultation (copied as is stated by the complainant in the complaint).
In fact, in the complaint, the complainant states that she had consulted the Doctor on 24.01.2018 and subsequently, she had stated that “wrong date was made as 01.01.2018 in the certificate which was done in the absence of the complainant by putting the date as 24.01.2018”. In the version it can be seen that the opposite party admits the mistake in the date recorded as an error. From the report given by the Doctor whom appointed as expert in the case, it can be seen that standard procedure were followed by doctor in the treatment of the complainant. The Commission has relied on the report of the doctor and derived into the following facts. The complainant had not proved with sufficient records that the opposite party doctor had committed deficiency of service or unfair trade practice towards the complainant and proper treatment was given by the opposite party Doctor to the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Doctor.
The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party doctor has directed the complainant to undergo an HIV test without directing her husband for such a test. This act of the opposite party is intentional and purposeful and was a planned action to help the husband of the complainant to produce the certificate before the court to get the divorce for her husband.
Even if this argument of the complainant is taken into account it can be seen from the complaint filed by the husband of the complainant before the court and also for the counter filed by the complainant against it the reason furnished in the complaint for getting divorce and the reply furnished by the complainant do not have any connection to the result of examination of the opposite party doctor, and the above are purely based on cruelty and about domestic violence.
Further regarding the date of certificate, which do not seems to have great significance while going through the petition and reply filed before the court by both the husband of the complainant and complainant respectively and therefore it is to be taken only as on crept in as is pleaded by the opposite party.
The reason for filing petition for divorce as is evident from the records produced from either side seems to be on the ground of cruelty and domestic violence etc for which the doctor who examined the complainant and suggested test or prescribed medicine cannot be held responsible. Moreover the report of the expert doctor from the panel of doctors given by the DMO and appointed by the Commission to assist the Commission has also stated that there is no irregularity in the treatment method followed by the Doctor in the instant case.
Hence the complainant had failed to prove with any records or otherwise any sort of deficiency or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party and hence there is no merit in the complaint and therefore the complainant is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on 19th day of December 2023.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
uk/
Assistant Registrar
