SADACHIAMMAL Vs. VEDAMALAYAN HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint filed under Sections 12 & 17 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986:- Gist of the complaint in brief are as follows:- Complainant is a retired Government servant who worked as an Nursing Tutor/Superintendent. On 13.11.06 she had a fall in the bath room and was admitted in the 1st opposite party?s hospital and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the doctors who attended on the complainant when she was admitted in the hospital, as an inpatient for the compression fracture in the spinal column and the 2nd and 3rd opposite party advised to take two injections to get complete relief from the existing pain and it would enable her to walk without any difficulty and for the same she was operated on 18.11.06 by a team of doctors of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. After the injection of the bone cement in to the spinal cord the spinal cord nerves and blood vessels were completely damaged as the cement was injected without assessing the exact area for injection and the quantity of cement to be administered and because of the wrong dosage it had caused excessive heat and damaged the blood vessels and the complainant was unable to move the hip portion, hip joint legs and also the small intestines, kidney lost its capacity of functioning and to set right the same 2nd operation was conducted on 19.11.06 and in spite of that no improvement was made, in spite of the hospitalization till 15.1.07 on the date of discharge. Complainant spent several lakhs for the treatment and subsequently obtained further treatment from Apollo Hospital from 20.1.07 to 1.3.07 and still under constant medical care and to do all the works with the help of third persons. The disability caused because of the wrong treatment was certified as 90% by the Government. Hence the complainant after issuing a legal notice on 21.6.07 came forward with the complaint claiming Rs.10,00,000/- being the cost of treatment given by the opposite parties and another Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment after discharge from the opposite parties? hospital and Rs.15,00,000/- future expenses to be incurred by the complainant for her treatment and another Rs.20,00,000/- for pain and sufferings and mental agony and for costs.

(2.) OPPOSITE parties denied the allegations of the complainant in their joint written version in which it is stated as follows :- The opposite parties 2 and 3 are well qualified medical practicing doctors having post graduate qualifications and number of years of service as mentioned in the version and the complainant was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital on 14.11.06 for the complaints of severe back pain following fall on 13.11.06 with weakening of bone common to the fractured in the body of the spinal cord. She was advised to undergo non surgical technique of treatment after having necessary tests she was operated given surgical technique was Vertebroplasty, which is a modernized one in the field of spine surgery with the advantage of minimal invasive surgery, immediate pain relief, shorter at the recovery rate type. Patient is aware of nature of the treatment being the Nursing Superintendent having 35 years of experience. The whole surgery was performed with the help of sophisticated instrument image intensifier. The surgery was successfully completed and since the complainant suffered pain on suspicion CT scan was taken which revealed the cement leak inside the canal which was also removed within 24 hours. Since the complainant wanted second opinion regarding the surgery MRI scan was taken and advised to wait for some time due to her complicated nature of diseases in her. The opposite parties exercised all necessary care in giving treatment, proper medical treatment was given in diagnosing the problems suffered by the patient and there was no deficiency on the part of the service. For the legal notice of the complainants a reply was given on 25.7.07 which was evaded by the complainant and the details in the notice given by the complainant are entirely contra to the complaint filed by the complainant and the treatment taken at the Apollo Hospital was not mentioned in the earlier notice and in order to claim monetary benefits various medical bills obtained by adding the 2nd opposite party?s name in the place of address and name in the bills and claiming of huge amount of Rs.60,00,000/- under various heads are fabulous and unsustainable. The complainant already realized the medical expenses through the mediclaim policy to the extent of Rs.1,90,628/- on 23.8.07. A sum of Rs.18,242/- is to be paid by the complainant which was suppressed by the complainant. Hence further claim of medical bills for Rs.1,24,269/- are also falsely claimed and hence the complaint to be dismissed as malicious in nature.

(3.) FOR the written version of the opposite parties the complainant filed reply version denying the details of written version and regarding the further treatment given in various hospitals after discharge from the Apollo Hospital.