A M MATHEW Vs. DIRECTOR KARUNA HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in Original Petition No.316 of 1995 of the Idukki District Forum is the appellant. The appeal is from the order dated 23.10.1996 of the Forum dismissing the complaint.

(2.) The complainant took his minor son aged 8 years on 8.3.1995 tb the first opposite party hospital following fever and cold. The second opposite party. Dr. Lucy Jacob examined the child and prescribed Paracetamol injection to be administered on the buttocks. The third opposite party-Staff Nurse Mini Devassia gave the injection as per the direction of the second opposite party. Immediately the boy developed foot drop on his left leg. The leg was paralysed. He was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Injections were given and physiotherapy was tried for two days. Finding no improvement, at the request of the complainant the boy was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, on 10.3.1995. The refer letter was addressed to Dr. Madhusudanan, Neurologist, Medical College Hospital. The boy was admitted on 11.3.1995 in the Medical College Hospital and treated there till 30.3.1995. Dr. K. Surendran of the Medical College Hospital diagnosed the symptoms as Sciatic Nerve Palsy. The boy could not walk properly even after for more than two month's treatment. He was advised to walk using short leg calipers. Inspite of further treatment in the Medical College Hospital and thereafter under the Ayurvedic system no marked improvement was seen. The left leg remains still disabled. The cause of Palsy according to the complainant is because the injection needle entered into the Sciatic nerve, as a result of the negligence of the third opposite party in administering the injection. He spent about Rs.25,000/- towards medical expense alone and further amounts are required for continuous treatment, even though the chances of complete recovery are almost completely ruled out. The complainant demanded Rs.4 lakhs as compensation by notice dated 16.5.1995. The notice was replied separately by each of the opposite parties. All of them denied liability. Hence the above complaint was filed claiming compensation against the opposite parties.

(3.) The opposite parties appeared and filed separate versions denying liability. All the opposite parties contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint is not maintainable. Further elaborate evidence and examination of medical experts and reference to medical books and journals will be necessary and hence the appropriate Forum is the regular Civil Court. In the joint version filed by the first and second opposite parties it is stated that the child was brought to the hospital at 6.30 p. m. on 8.3.1995 with high temperature. Dr Lucy Jacob examined the patient and found that the child was suffering from Follicular Tonsillitis (Acute) enlarged and conjested due to acute viral or bacterial infection. To bring down the temperature Paracetamol injection was prescribed and the third opposite party administered the injection at the upper outer quadrant of the left buttock. Soon after the injection the child found it difficult to stand on his leg. The second opposite party was informed and further treatment till 10.3.1995 was given to him and thereafter for better treatment he was referred to the famous neurologist Dr. Madhusudhanan of the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. But the complainant took the child to another Dr. Surendran who diagnosed the symptom as Sciatic Nerve Palsy. Extreme care was taken by the opposite parties in the treatment. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. The diagnosis of Dr. Surendran cannot be accepted. Sciatic Nerve Palsy can occur due to different reasons. In this case the child was brought some time before consequent on the fall from a cycle. Sciatic Nerve Palsy can be caused by hitting the buttock on any hard substance. It can also be caused by viral infection. But in any event the injection did not cause palsy as it was done by a qualified and experienced nurse and as the needle did not touch the sciatic nerve. The claim for compensation is false and baseless and the complaint should be dismissed.