JESUS JOHN Vs. SPECIALIST HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"?) has been preferred by the Complainant against the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission"?). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant against the Order dated 25.01.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (for short "the District Forum"?) vide which the District Forum had dismissed his Complaint.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated in the Complaint, are that the Complainant on 25.02.2006 at about 8 a.m. met with a road accident and immediately after the accident the Complainant was admitted in K.V.M., Hospital Cherthala. After taking X-ray of the right leg, Dr. Kammath advised him for putting screw plate and to undergo a surgery within 24 hours. For better management the Complainant approached Specialists' Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital"?) at about 1 p.m. At the Hospital 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th Opposite Party doctors jointly examined him and advised to cling weight on his injured right leg and accordingly a rod was inserted in his right leg. He was admitted in the ICU. The third Opposite Party assured him that the weight was only put up for 74 hours and the surgery would be done on the third day. However, on the next day the fourth Opposite Party informed him that yjr weight must be continued for some days and the surgery would be done only on the 5 th day. Thereafter the Complainant was shifted to a room from ICU with the weight. It is averred that when the Complainant was in ICU, he suffered obstruction in passing urine and a temporary catheter was inserted at about 11 p.m. and on 26.02.2006 a permanent tube was inserted. On 02.03.2006, the surgery was conducted by the 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th Opposite Parties. After the said surgery, he suffered from suffocation and If the mask would not have been removed by the Complainant himself, he would have died. He was suffering from acute pain and asked for pain killers. However, the staff of the Hospital had misplaced his pain killers. His sister had to purchase new pain killers. Due to this he had so suffer acute pain for one hour. On 03.03.2006 he was shifted to the room from ICU. On that day itself, second OP asked the Complainant to remove tube and pass urine. Accordingly, the permanent tube was removed. The Complainant tried to pass urine without tube but he had felt severe pain with the urine blockage. It is averred that he requested to put the tube but his request was not heeded by the Hospital authorities. Complainant had to suffer a lot of pain. One Dr. Vidyadharan asked nurse not to harass the Complainant and instructed the duty nurse to put permanent tube. However, the duty nurse did not pay any attention to that. When the Complainant suffered obstruction in passing urine, the Opposite Parties inserted temporary tube instead of permanent one.

(3.) It is further stated that after discharge from the Hospital the Complainant regularly visited the Hospital for follow-up treatment. After 1 and 1/2 weeks of the removal of the stiches he felt the shortening of his right leg. He informed about the same to the Opposite Parties but they did not pay any heed to that. When he persisted with his complaint the Opposite parties asked him not to bother about the defect as the shortage was only 1 c.m. Although the shortage of right leg was only 1 inch, it caused grave inconvenience to him. The Complainant then consulted doctors of Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam and the said doctor opined that the length of the right leg ought to have been corrected by the Opposite Parties during the surgery. Subsequently, Dr. P.S. John, Professor and Head of Department of Ortho, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and doctor at ESI Hospital, Kalamasseri also opined the same. All experts opined that at the time of surgery the length of the right leg was not corrected and this caused bone overlap in the right leg. Due to careless and negligent act of the Opposite Parties, Complainant has become handicapped. He was working as a machine operator but due to his handicap now he is unable to do the work due to defect in his leg. It is prayed that Opposite Parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs towards compensation along with costs.