BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF JULY 2022

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 202/2014

V/s

ORDER

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.23.10.2014 passed in CC.No.736/2012 on the file of 4^th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

2.      The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that she suffered a cut in her forearm due to window glass pane cut causing bleeding injury.  The injury was caused to epithelial tissue and immediately she approached the Opposite Party No.1 hospital and given an opinion that there is a injury caused to the vascular and tendon injury and decided to operate.  Before operation it was noticed that blood had clotted and this complainant was in a position to move all her fingers of the left hand.  However after operation, the doctors assured that operation was successful, the complainant required to report for further evaluation subsequently.  The doctors advised the complainant to undergo physiotherapy which will help to regain the movement of fingers.  The complainant inspite of efforts and physiotherapy was unable to move the fingers and unable to regain normal position.  The complainant took an opinion from Bangalore Neuro Centre where it was diagnosed that the serious injury was caused to ulnar nerve which was the root cause for the absence of the fingers movements.  The complainant brought the same to the knowledge of the Opposite Party about the damage caused to the ulnar nerve at the time of operation for which the Opposite Party hospital quoted a bill for Rs.92,000/- and corrective surgery was done.  Even after the corrective surgery, the complainant cannot regained normal movement to the fingers.  Inspite of that the Opposite Parties have charged earlier Rs.32,813/- for the first operation and Rs.92,370/- for the second operation which was not successful.  The injury was caused only due to the operation made by the doctors in the Opposite Party hospital.  Hence, alleged medical negligence and prayed for compensation before the District Commission.  The District Commission without considering the allegations and documents has dismissed the complaint.  Hence, the complainant prayed to allow the appeal and to grant compensation as prayed in the complaint in the interest of justice and equity by setting aside the Order passed by the District Commission. 

3.      Heard the arguments of both sides.

4.      On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order of the District Commission, it is noticed that on 08.04.2011 the complainant approached the Opposite Party hospital for the injury caused to her forearm due to fall of window glass pane.  One Dr. Ravishankar has given an opinion after noticing the injury went for operation as there was vascular and tendon injury.  The operation was done on 08.04.2011 and discharged on 09.04.2011 with an advice to take physiotherapy for movement of the fingers.  The complainant alleged that before operation the blood was clotted and the movement of the fingers was normal whereas after operation she was unable to move her fingers.  Subsequently after discharge she approached Bengaluru Hand Centre wherey they have given a certificate stating that she sustained glass piece injury to the left forearm on 08.04.2011.  She underwent primary treatment elsewhere for the same.  She was presented to them on 09.09.2011 with deformity left hand and difficulty in using the left hand.  On detailed examination, she was found to be having injury to the ulnar nerve in the left forearm.  The ENMG studies have confirmed the diagnosis of ulnar nerve repair with nerve graft to improve the function of her left hand.  The surgery proposed is intended to improve the function of left hand although it does not guarantee the normal movements.

5.      The complainant again approached the Opposite Party with this report where the corrective surgery was done by them.  Thereafter, she noticed that still there is a problem in movement of the fingers in the left hand, hence, alleged medical negligence and filed a complaint.  The Opposite Parties during the course of trial before the District Commission have taken a defence that there was a large irregular lacerated wound measuring 12cm x 6cm x 5 cm.  It was a very deep injury of the ulnar nerve, the anterior interossoeus nerve, anterior interossoeus artery pronator teres, brachioradialis, flexor, degitorum, superficial tendon were served.  During the first operation they noticed significant haemorrhage.   The artery nerve and tendon nerve were primarily repaired with great care and precision with the appropriate material following surgery and her condition was stable and no further bleeding was noticed and she was discharged on 09.04.2011.  Later they have advised for intensive physiotherapy since the wound was healed.  At that stage also they have advised the complainant that she has a ulnar nerve weakness and further surgery may be necessary if situation does not improve with the physiotherapy.  Thereafter, again they have conducted another corrective operation of the ulnar nerve.  They have spent significant amount of time with the complainant counseling her and listening to her difficulties and she expressed gratitude and satisfaction with the efforts of the Opposite Party.  They did the operation to the best of their knowledge thorough and careful assessment of the nature and extent of the injury was made on the operating table.  The ulnar nerve is notorious for post traumatic palsy which is because of initial injury and lack of blood supply for over two hours and this is not due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.  The urgent repair of the same was done with precaution and hence, submits that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. 

6.      We noticed here that the complainant has not produced any material to show that she has taken intensive physiotherapy as advised by the doctor after discharge.  Apart from that ulnar nerve was damaged at the time of injury itself.  The doctors at Opposite Party Hospital have made best efforts in performing the operation to the complainant and advised for post operative physiotherapy.  Thereafter, when the progress was not found they have made corrective operation which is in accordance with the medical process.  The complainant has to follow-up the advice given by the doctors after operation.  We consider that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the complainant herself in follow-up the advice given by the doctors.  It is also pertinent to note that the certificate given by the Bengaluru Hand Centre does not specifically given information that there is negligence on the part of the Opposite Party while performing the operation to the left hand.  Such being the case, the complainant failed to establish the medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party hospital.  Further, the Opposite Parties have made best efforts to rectify the injury and progressive operation also made for normal movement of the fingers of left hand.  We found that there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.  After considering evidence of both parties, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.  We found that there is no any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission.  No interference is required.  The appellant failed to establish the medical negligence on the part of the respondent.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Forward free copies to both parties.

      Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*