C S R MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. M RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st opposite party is the appellant. The complainant was an experienced tailor and was carrying on his avocation as such. He has two sons and a daughter besides his wife who are dependent upon him. He has no other source of income. On 3.2.1995, on his return from a temple, the complainant was tripped by a stone and lost his balance. At that time, the complainant did not suffer any pain, but there was a cyst formed on his left big toe. After a week, he was having fever and body pain. The 1st opposite party clinic is situated near the house of the complainant and, therefore, he went there for treatment. The wound on the left big toe was cleaned and dressed up and he was given medication for fever and body pain. He was advised by the 1st opposite party to come to the hospital regularly for a month and take treatment till the wound in the left big toe was cured. Daily dressing was done for the cyst on his left toe. He also took the medicines prescribed by the Doctors regularly. The complainant was paying the necessary fees to the Doctors for the service rendered by them. But the cyst on the left big toe did not subside and on the other hand, it began to grow in size. Therefore, the complainant along with his wife and son, enquired the Head of the administration of the 1st opposite party as to why the wound has not yet healed though he has been continuously taking treatment for the same at their hands. He was then advised by the 1st opposite party to admit himself as an in -patient and take treatment. They also stated that if he did so, he will be completely cured. Accordingly, the complainant got himself admitted as an in -patient on 17.3.1995. On 20.3.1995, his urine, blood and excreta were examined and his left foot was also x -rayed. On the basis of the report of the X -ray, they advised him that if the portion of the toes viz., the top of the foot is opened up, the wound would get healed. Accordingly, they made an incision with a knife. From the next day onwards, the Doctors working in the hospital of the 1st opposite party went on strike. On account of this strike, the complainant and others who were admitted as in -patients in the hospital were put to considerable hardship, pain and sufferings. The staff in the hospital during the time, daily washed the complainant s leg in a solvent mixed with bleaching powder and made him dip his feet into the same. This increased the burning sensation in his leg. Despite the complainant reporting about the same, the staff of the 1st opposite party hospital insisted and compelled the complainant to dip his foot. Thus, the 1st opposite party failed and omitted to render proper medical treatment in the hospital. The 1st opposite party also failed to take suitable alternative steps to attend the patients when the Doctors went on strike. Therefore, the complainant wanted to be shifted to some other hospital. Dr. Karthik Babu, an expert Doctor attached to the 1st opposite party hospital stated that the strike would be called off soon and persuaded the complainant to stayput in the hospital. But the strike continued to go on. The complainant was put to great hardship. The wound in his foot became big, got ulceraged and swelled considerably and it became impossible for the complainant to move his leg. The attempt by the complainant to get experts from other hospitals were also failed by the opposite parties. On the advice of Dr. Karthik Babu, the complainant was taken to the hospital of the 2nd opposite party. There, after examination, the complainant was informed that proper treatment had not been given to the complainant and that as a result of the same, it has become necessary to amputate his left leg from above knee. The 2nd opposite party also informed that they would try medication and cure the complainant to which the complainant consented. The 2nd opposite party administered costly medicines and gave treatment to the complainant, but there was no improvement. Then, specialists were sent for and they, after examining the complainant, stated that only if his left leg was amputated from above knee, his life could be saved. As there was deficiency on the part of the 1st opposite party and with a view to pacify the complainant and his family members, it was promised that they would pay a reasonable amount and further bear the expenses of the operation. Accordingly, the 2nd opposite party along with other Doctors, carried out the operation of amputation of the complainant s left leg on 20.4.1995. Thereafter, the complainant was an in -patient in the hospital of the 2nd opposite party for a month and has paid the total charges for the treatment. He was discharged on 19.5.1995. The opposite parties promised to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for their carelessness and improper treatment. But they did not pay the amount as promised. When the complainant demanded to the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party directed him to go to the 2nd opposite party. When the complainant demanded for medical records, it was also refused. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant prays for compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - towards medical expenses and Rs. 1,000/ - towards costs.

(2.) THE 1st opposite party pleaded thus: The complainant was admitted in the hospital of the 1st opposite party on 17.3.1995 for treatment for his swollen left big toe. On examination, he was found to be a chronic diabetic. Right from the moment of his admission in the hospital till his discharge on 24.3.1995, there was systematic treatment and they properly treated him. There was no deficiency in service. It is also not true to say that the strike by some of the Medical Officers of this opposite party resulted in the worsening of the complainant s condition. Dr. M.S. Karthik, of this opposite party was on duty round -the -clock besides Dr. K.V. Maheswaran and Dr. K.P. Gurumoorthy, who not being employees, but Consultants, were also attending on the complainant. The complainant expressed his desire to get himself admitted in the Nursing Home of the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party was not, therefore, aware what happened thereafter. It is false that the 2nd opposite party found fault with the line of treatment given by the 1st opposite party. The amputation of the leg was carried out nearly after a month of discharge of the complainant from the hospital. It is not true to say that the 1st opposite party agreed to pay compensation. It is also not true to say that the complainant s men went to the house of this opposite party and made any demand. It is also false to say that the representatives of the 1st opposite party took away the receipts and other documents from the complainant making a false promise to pay compensation. All possible care, attention and proper treatment was given by this opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on his part.

(3.) THE 2nd opposite party contended as follows: When the complainant came to the 2nd opposite party hospital on the recommendations of Dr. Karthik Babu, it was made known that the complainant was suffering from cellulites and gangrene in the left foot and ankle and the middle of left leg. The 2nd opposite party is not aware of the previous treatment given to him. It is understood by this opposite party that the petitioner had cellulites and gangrene even before he was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital. It is later known that urine sugar, blood sugar and X -ray were taken. It was found that there was cellulites and gangrene of the left foot and ankle in the middle of the leg due to chronic diabetes. The 2nd opposite party is not aware of the Doctors strike. The complainant was admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital on 24.3.1995. After the initial examination, treatment was started for chronic diabetes, cellulites and gangrene. This opposite party also arranged for the expert opinion of Dr. K.N. Vasudevan. In spite of treatment, cellulites and gangrene progressed and could not be controlled on account of the chronic diabetes. The senior surgeon, therefore, advised amputation of the left leg. The complainant and his wife pressed the 2nd opposite party to amputate the left leg as early as possible to save his life. Since there was no other go except amputation of the left leg, the 2nd opposite party amputated the left leg with the help of Ortho Surgeon Dr. Pandiarajan. Had the amputation been not done, the life of the complainant would not have been saved. All formalities were observed before amputation. The entire clinical condition, the level of amputation and its consequences were all clearly explained to the complainant and his wife and with their whole -hearted consent the amputation was carried out. After the amputation, treatment was followed for one month and the patient s diabetes was controlled and he was discharged in good condition on 19.5.1995. It is not true to say that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - for medical expenses. The 2nd opposite party did not receive any such amount from the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is not aware of the 1st opposite party promising to give compensation. It is also not admitted that this opposite party s representatives went to the house of the complainant had got back all the documents. The complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency of service.