Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/21

Dr. KURIEN THOMAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

THOMSON - Opp.Party(s)

M C SURESH

10 Jul 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.21/14

JUDGMENT DATED :10.07.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in OP.No.807/14 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur order dated : 12.09.2013)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. Dr.Kurian Thomas,

St.James Hospital,

Chalakudy,

Pin – 680 307

 

2. Dr.M.O.Poulose,

St.James Hospital,

Chalakudy,

Pin – 680 307

 

(By Adv.Sri.M.C.Suresh)

 

Vs

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Thomson,

S/o.Sunny Jose,

Thaivalappil House,

Koratty,

Thrissur District

Pin – 680 308

 

 

2.The Director,

St.James Hospital,

Chalakudy,

Pin – 680 308

 

(R1 by Adv.Sri.R.S.Kalkura)

 

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellants are opposite parties 2 & 3 in OP.No.807/2004 in the CDRF, Thrissur. The first respondent was the sole complainant. He sustained injury to his leg on 14.12.2003 and was taken to the first opposite party hospital. The causalty medical officer examined him and told him that there was no complication. Accordingly, he was permitted to leave the hospital after applying medicines. The allegation in the complaint is that subsequently pain increased and second opposite party doctor examined him and applied medicines. But there was no relief from the pain and swelling. On 24.12.2003 he again went to the first opposite party hospital. At that time the third opposite party doctor examined him. He suggested surgery and admitted the complainant in the hospital. Surgery was performed on that day itself and he was discharged on 29.12.2003.  Subsequently, though occasional dressing of the wound was done in the hospital, the swelling did not subside. Hence the third opposite party probed the wound. But suggested that there was no complication. He advised the complainant to take scan. But as the complainant realized that appropriate treatment was not being given, he went to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. Surgery was done there on 22.01.2004 and a piece of the mid rib of coconut palm frond which was part of a broom was taken out from the wound. A portion of the piece so recovered was sent for test in the laboratory and the remaining portion was put in a bottle sealed and given to the complainant. Subsequently, the condition of the complainant improved. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the CDRF, Thrissur.

          2. The first opposite party in its version claimed that it was a multi specialty hospital employing 40 doctors with modern facilities and 450 beds. It has 24 hrs casualty service with laboratory x-ray scanning machines, theatre facilities etc. The staff nurses are well qualified and experienced. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the hospital.

          3.      In their joint version opposite parties 2 & 3 admitted that the complainant was brought to the hospital on 14.12.2003 with history of sustaining minor injury on the proximal plantar aspect of big toe of his right foot with the mid rib of coconut palm frond which was part of a broom. He was seen by the casualty medical officer who conducted detailed examination. The wound was very small and no foreign body could be found out. Hence the wound was managed conservatively with utmost care and caution. The wound was cleaned and dressed injection TT was given and proper antibiotics were prescribed. The second opposite party examined the complainant on 17.12.2003. Though he looked for the presence of any foreign body, nothing was felt on palpation. The complainant and his relative were informed that despite conservative management for a short period if the sinus persisted exploration for foreign body should be done. At the time of examination though the second opposite party suspected the presence of foreign body and looked for the same, none was palpable or visible and the wound was small. He preferred conservative management to full scale exploration under anaesthesia fearing negative result. The diagnosis and treatment prescribed were apt and in accordance with accepted practice and procedure. On 29.12.2003 the wound was found healing. Hence the same treatment was continued. The third opposite party attended the complainant form 24.12.2003 onwards. On his examination abscess was found in the infected wound. He had done incision and drainage of the abscess. On 24.12.2003, under all aseptic care and caution he explored the wound for foreign body. But none could be located. On 21.01.2004 the third opposite party again conducted detailed exploration of the wound. He suggested exploration under anaesthesia as no foreign body could be seen or felt otherwise. In disregard of the medical advice the relatives of the complainant refused consent for exploration under anaesthesia and insisted for discharge. There was no negligence of deficiency in service on their part.

          4.      Before the consumer forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts. P1 to P5 were marked on his side. Opposite parties 2 & 3 gave evidence as DW1 & DW2. The medical records relating to the complainant produced from the first opposite party hospital were marked as Ext.R1. The foreign body recovered at the medical trust hospital is marked in evidence as MO1. Finding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the consumer forum directed opposite parties 2 & 3 to pay Rs.20,000/-each  to the complainant and the first opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2000/-. Opposite parties 2 & 3 are challenging the conclusions in the order of the consumer forum.

          5.      Admittedly, the complainant approached the first opposite party hospital on 14.12.2003 with injury on the proximal plantar aspect of right big toe. The subsequent sequence of events can be better explained with reference to Ext.R1 medical records relating to the patient. It appears that earlier on 04.01.2003 he was brought to the causality with injury and suspected fracture to nasal bridge sustained while playing cricket. The incident which is the basis of the complaint was on 14.12.2003. In Ext.R1 there is no clear description of the injury on that occasion. It is merely written “ injury to left side foreign body not seen”. The history of the injury is seen written when the patient was brought to the hospital on 16.12.2003. At that time the history is mentioned as one of sustaining injury with broom stick. The patient is again brought to the same hospital on 17.12.2003. Injury with broom stick in the left foot is mentioned. There was some watery discharge. The patient was again brought to the hospital on 19.12.2003. At that time the wound was slightly black. No serious exploration to detect any foreign body is seen done during his visits. The patient was again brought to the hospital on 24.12.2003. At that time the injury was infected and there was pus discharge. At that time the presence of foreign body was suspected. But nothing is written about any exploration done. The patient was again brought to the hospital on 03.01.2004 and it is noted that the wound was healing. There were subsequent visits to the hospital on 07.01.2004, 12.01.2004, 09.01.2004 and  21.01.2004. The patient is seen referred to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam as per Ext.P2 dated 21.01.2004. It is seen from Ext.P1 discharge summary issued from the Medical Trust Hospital, Eranakulam that the complainant was admitted there on 21.01.2004 itself. The diagnosis made was “foreign body plantar aspect of right big toe with infection”. The history narrated was injury to plantar aspect right foot one month back. The patient was treated with incision and drainage elsewhere (Obviously in the first opposite party hospital). At the time of admission in the Medical Trust Hospital he was complaining of discharge from the wound in the right great toe. X-ray right foot revealed no abnormality. The treatment given on 22.01.2004 was exploration of wound in the right great toe under ankle block and foreign body (splinter) was found and removed. It appears that the long agony of the patient ended there. A part of the splinter removed was allegedly handed over to the complainant and was produced as MO1. It is a piece of the mid rib of coconut palm frond which was part of a broom.

          6.      The argument advanced for the appellants is that as per Ext.P1 ‘splinter’ was removed but the produced foreign body is something else. But even the history noted in Ext.R1 records is that injury was sustained from a broom stick. Then there is no scope for argument based on the use of the word ‘splinter’ which is a general term which refers to any broken piece of wood glass etc. Apparently, therefore a piece of the mid rib of coconut palm frond pierced into the right big toe of the complainant and got embedded in the flesh. The complainant was brought to the first opposite party hospital with this injury. From MO1 it is seen that the foreign object that pierced and got embedded in the flesh was sufficiently large and had reasonable standard of expertise been used and reasonable care had been bestowed a doctor could have easily located the foreign body. But Ext.R1 records kept by the opposite party reveal that no serious effort was done to locate any foreign body despite the nature of the injury alleged by the complainant. It is unexplained how the wound came to be described as on the left side whereas it was actually on the right side. It was very late when the presence of foreign body was suspected. Even after abscess was formed no serious attempt was made to explore the wound and even when exploration was made, nothing could be located which itself is indicative of lack of reasonable care on the part of the opposite parties. After the patient was admitted in the Medical trust hospital, they easily explored and detected the foreign body. In the meanwhile, the complainant suffered severe pain and agony and the reason is nothing short of lack of reasonable care on the part of the opposite parties. In short, no part of the conclusions of the consumer forum requires interference. The compensation ordered to be paid is also reasonable.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit but without costs.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

 

          Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.21/14

JUDGMENT DATED :10.07.2015

 

                                      BE/