S AMANULLAH Vs. MOHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) XXX xxx xxx

(2.) IN the version filed by the opposite party, he has stated as follows : On 7.8.1997 the complainant visited MIOT Hospital, which was at that time located in the premises of Vijaya Hospital. He complained of the pain in the low -back with right sided sciatia. A myelogram was taken which showed massive disc prolapse of L4, L5". The complainant was advised to undergo operation. The surgical procedure of "fenestration disc excision L4 L5 right side was performed on 13.8.1997. The patient recovered well from the surgery and his vital parameters were within normal limits. His wound was healing well. The patient has to be inpatient for at least two weeks after surgery, but the complainant pointing out his good post operative recovery, requested to be discharged citing financial reasons. Therefore, he was discharged on 19.8.1997. He was advised to report every day but he did not adhere to the same. At the time when the complainant met the opposite party his flexibility was very restricted. He could not bend his back or move side ways. The disc prolapse was also responsible for the sciatic pain radiating down his right leg. The surgical procedure was intended to relieve this. But insofar as the neurological deficit, that is to say, the loss of sensation and weakness of the right foot, it could not in any way be rectified by way of surgical intervention. Only prolonged physiotherapy could improve this and give relief. On 11.10.1997 the complainant came to the opposite party complaining of numbness in the right foot. At that time, it was found that the complainant s operative wound had healed well. He was advised to get himself for further examination and treatment. But the complainant did not choose to do so and has gone to Malar Hospital where he was advised admission and surgery. The complainant came to the opposite party with that report. The report which showed that there was bulging of the disc above (L3 and L4) and below (L5 and S1) the operated area (L4 and L5) that this has resulted in pressure on the nerve roots. He was advised to undergo another surgery. Accordingly the neurosurgeon Dr. Palande examined the complainant. The complainant was admitted as inpatient on 12.5.1998. The operation was performed and the patient was discharged on 23.5.1998. There was no negligence or wrong medical treatment. Prior to the first surgery the flexibility of the spine was grossly limited. But, after the surgery his back problem was much better. His condition, it appears to have deteriorated, probably due to the excessive strain put on his back by the complainant for which the opposite party is not responsible. In so far as the second surgery is concerned, the opposite party out of consideration did not charge the complainant his professional fees. But he has to pay the hospital expenditure such as room rent, operation theatre charges. There was no wrong treatment given to the complainant. The complainant condition was improved and his mobility was restored after the first surgery. After 11.10.1997 his condition appears to have deteriorated perhaps due to extensive strain. He was advised by the doctors at Malar Hospital to undergo surgery in March, 1998. He did not do the same and came back to the opposite party in May, 1998. The complainant received the best medical care and attention. The opposite party is not responsible and liable in any manner.

(3.) THE points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether there is deficiency in service? (2) If so, to what compensation, the complainant is entitled to? To begin with, the complainant has not examined any expert in support of his case. He has also not produced any medical textbooks or authorities to substantiate the contentions raised by him. The substance of the complainant s case is that he was having a back pain for some time. Then he consulted the Opposite party who suggested surgery. His further case is that after surgery, there was no improvement but the pain continued to be there and that he had also leg problem. He then consulted the doctors at Malar Hospital, who advised second surgery, then later he reverted to the opposite party and had second surgery done. The second surgery worsened the situation that he has lost sensation in his right leg and that he has been put to untold sufferings all because of the surgeries which were done carelessly and negligently by the opposite party. This is, of course, stoutly disputed by the opposite party. In the history sheet we find that at the time of first admission with the opposite party, it is noted by the doctor as follows: