SUGACHITRA Vs. R. S. MURLIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal was filed against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in OP No. 31 of 2004, whereby the Complaint was dismissed on the ground that the Complainant failed to prove medical negligence or deficiency in service against the Opposite Party.

(2.) Brief facts are that the Complainant, Ms. Sugachitra (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') during 18/9/2002 to 21/9/2002 took treatment from Dr. R. S. Murlidharan, the Opposite Party, at K. S. Hospital, Chennai for Pyrexia of unknown Origin (PUO)". It was alleged that due to administration of Sulfa drugs, the patient suffered severe allergic reaction and developed oral ulcers, swelling of lips with skin and eye complication. Thereafter, from 23/9/2002 to 21. 10.2002, she took further treatment at the Apollo Hospital for the alleged allergic complications. Thereafter, for her eye complications, she consulted at Sankara Netralaya and few eye specialists at Chennai. Being aggrieved due to alleged negligent treatment of the Opposite Party caused such complications and incurable sufferings; she filed the Consumer Complaint before the State Commission, Chennai.

(3.) The Opposite Party, Dr. K. S. Murlidharan, filed the written version and submitted that he was a consultant at K. S. Hospital and he treated the patient between 18/9/2002 to 21/9/2002. He denied any negligence during treatment. He further submitted that prior to the admission to K.S. Hospital, the patient was treated by her family doctor for her complaints of fever, dryness and ulcers in mouth. He suspected it as PUO with Herpes viral disease; and kept her under observation at K. S. Hospital. She was treated with antibiotics and other medicines, but not administered any Sulfa drugs. The injection OF 200 mg was not a Sulfa drug. She was discharged at her request on 21/9/2002 and called for follow up on 24/9/2002. However, the patient approached the Apollo Hospital and he was not aware of her further treatment. He further submitted that on 15/9/2003 after almost one year, the Complainant issued a legal notice, stating that due to negligence of the Opposite Party, she suffered Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), though, no way the Opposite Party was responsible for the alleged medical negligence.