BEFORE THE HARYANA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Bays No.
3 - 6, Sector – 4, Panchkula – 134 112 (Haryana)
Phone :
0172 – 2567601, Fax : 0172 –2567502
E-mail
: har-sforum@nic.in,
hr.scdrc@gmail.com
FIRST
APPEAL NO. OF 2017
APPELLANT/ : The Medical suprintendent,
Opposite Party No. 2 Taneya Hospital Private
Limited,
Sector-21D,
Near Community Centre, Opposite Huda Market, N I T, Faridabad – 121 001,
(Haryana), Phone : 0129 - 246 3333.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ : 1. Surender Singh, Aged about
Complainant 47
years, S/o Mr. Parmal Singh,
R/o
House No. 512, Village – Said-ul-Ajaib, New Delhi – 110 030.
Opposite Party No. 1 2. Dr. Yuvraj, Consultant
Orthopaedic
Surgeon Taneya Hospital Private Limited, Sector-21D, Near Community Centre,
Opposite Huda Market, N I T, Faridabad – 121 001, (Haryana), Phone : 0129
- 246 3333.
FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
(NO. 68 OF 1986).
Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2017 passed
by the District Consumer Dispute redressal Forum, Faridabad (Haryana) in the
matter Surender Singh V/s Dr. Yuvraj in the Consumer Complaint No. 340 of 2011,
the appellant / opposite party No. 1 named above most humbly and respectfully
begs to prefer this first appeal on following facts and grounds amongst the
others :
Material facts of the
case :
1. Human life is very valuable; it must be preserved at all costs. So
every member of the medical profession and the public in general have an
obligation to provide aid to victims of any accidents and help them to survive from
possible death. There is no law that forbids this.
2. The point involved in this appeal is whether emergency medical
care provided in the appellant hospital can be subject of judicial scrutiny by
Consumer Fora inspite of the fact that the complainant himself moved 4 more hospitals
according to his own choice, without following any of the medical advice ?
3. Can
the Hospital control follow-up of patient ? Patient may not come at all or come
according to convenience. Hospital does not know he has improved / deteriorated
/ gone elsewhere. Follow-up, which is cardinal component of medical management
is entirely beyond the control of the Hospital.
4.
Complainant Shri Surender Singh, aged
39 years approached the hospital of the Appellant with c/o trauma, both hands
palmar side while working in a glass shop in Vill. Anchor, Faridabad, at about
11:30 AM on 02.7.2010 having deep wound on both hands, bleeding profusely. He
was immediately attended to by Dr. Yuvraj (Respondent No.2). The patient was
clinically examined to find that there was little damage to tendon, median
Nerve and Cephalic vein in his right wrist, but the cut was so deep on left
wrist that even Ulnar and Median nerve seemed to have damaged very badly.
Accordingly, primary closure was done on right hand after debridement but, as
the damage was heavy on left wrist, the patient was, very frankly told that he
would try his level best to repair Ulnar, Median nerve and Cephalic vein, but
the chances are very remote which may eventually cause numbness, hand grip may
become poor and even cause deformity in the left hand of the complainant. Under
the circumstances, the complainant is free to take a second option also form some
another specialist at the higher centre, but the complainant immediately gave
his written consent requesting the appellant to give the treatment as deemed
fit. Accordingly, the patient was operated upon, necessary medication was
prescribed and he was allowed to go home with and advice to be regular in
follow-up checkup and dressings. During follow-up, his stitches were removed on
12.07.2010 when his wound was yet not healed up completely though the same was
getting healed up appreciably. The appellant prescribed certain medications to
be consumed at home and advised the complainant to report back to the Respondent
No. 2 after two days for the follow up check up with a further mention that
once the wound is healed up completely, the complainant will have to undergo
physiotherapy for about four weeks to get his left hand healthy and
functionable in all respects, but unfortunately, the patient never reported
back to the Respondent No. 2 for further management. Hence, no medical
negligence can be attributed on the part of the Respondents for the sufferings,
if any, the complainant was suffering from. The treatment record submitted by
the complainant indicates that he approached Dr. Mehta urology and surgery
centre on 31.07.2010. Who removed treads, a thread which was left by the
Respondent No. 2 because the area was not totally healed, and it was to be
removed on the next visit. The patient did not come. Hence this appeal on
following grounds amongst the others :
GROUNDS :
A.
For that, the Fora below failed to appreciate
that patient/Complainant approached the Respondent No.2 in the hospital of the Appellant
on 02.07.2010 at around 11 : 30 AM, the first aid treatment in question was
given to the patient by the appellant, in good faith after explaining the
diagnosis, course of treatment, possible limitations of treatment, prognosis,
benefits, losses with a further mention that though the damage is little to
Ulnar & median nerve as well to Cephalic vein on the right hand but the
damage seems to be heavy on left wrist, however, appellant tried his level best
to repair the same to see that the same starts functioning at the earliest, but
the chances are remote in case of left wrist, which may eventually cause
numbness, poor grip and weakness in the left hand of the complainant but the
complainant immediately gave his written consent requesting appellant to give
the treatment as deemed fit. Accordingly the patient was operated upon,
necessary medications were prescribed and he was allowed to go home with an
advice to be regular in follow-up checkup and dressings. During follow-up, his
stitches were removed on 12.07.2010 when his wound was getting healed up
appreciably. As the wound was yet not healed up completely, the Respondent No.2
prescribed certain medication to be consumed at home with a further mention
that once the wound is healed up completely, the complainant will have to
undergo physiotherapy for about four weeks to get his left hand healthy and
functionable, but unfortunately, the patient never reported back to the Respondent
No. 2 for the further management.
B.
For that, the Fora below ought to have
appreciated that the patient should
have come to the surgeon for the follow-up and to remove the stitch which was
left because in that area the wound had not healed completely, but the patient
visited the Dr. Mehta Urology Centre without the consultation of the operating
doctor. This is sole negligence of the patient. Moreover, only the thread was removed, and no
surgery was done. The patent did not follow the expert opinion of Asian
Hospital and also did not consult Dr. Yuvraj, who was the consultant orthopedic
surgeon at Asian Hospital.
C.
For that, the For a below committed
grave error and irregularity in not considering that the diagnosis of disease
and further its treatment and the complications subsequent to always a matter
of fact and not of speculation; and if the benefits of treatment have to go to
the patient, it’s untoward effects and unwarranted results will also go to the
complainant/patient, and these untoward results cannot be garbed as negligence,
where it is a fact that the Respondents being treating doctors, have tried
their level best and used their highest degree of skill, care, knowledge,
infrastructures, efforts and precautions. It is further stated that the
treating doctors cannot avoid any inherent complication (in almost 100% cases)
which are basic ingredients either of disease pathology itself or treatment
procedure, about which the Complainant was well informed as was well in
knowledge also. Only precautionary steps can be taken by the respondents as any
other prudent qualified doctor/consultant who is engaged in the treatment of
the patient would do. Until unless the Complainant is able to prove that “the
treating doctor has deviated from the normal/ prescribed line of treatments
applicable to the particular case/disease conditions to label that as
negligence”, no such complaint should be tried by this Hon’ble Forum.
D.
For that, the For a below committed
material irregularity and illegality in not considering that in this case the
complainant was properly examined, investigated, diagnosed and treated by the respondent
No. 2 in the hospital of Appellant as per prescribed norms of Medical Ethics,
which are mentioned in the text books and journals of the subject concerned
without deviating from the standard prescribed line of treatment, hence the
complaint was liable to be dismissed out rightly.
E.
For that, the For a below ought to have
considered that the Complainant approached the appellant in the hospital of the
Appellant in Emergency on 02.07.2010, the treatment in question was given to
the Complainant by the appellant in good faith after explaining the diagnosis,
limitations of treatment, benefits, losses and well known complications, etc.
The dispute raised by the Complainant in the present complainant was manifestly
outside the purview of the said act since the same was intentionally
prejudiced, malafide and false against the Respondents, hence the complainant
was liable to be dismissed.
F.
For that, the Fora below failed to have
appreciated that no surgery was performed by Dr. Mehta. However, the
complainant should have approached the Respondents thereafter at least, but the
complainant surprisingly preferred to approach ASIAN Hospital on 18.08.2010 which
is just nearer to Taneya Hospital. It is noted that the Doctor of ASIAN
Hospital also advised him to undergo physiotherapy but the complainant ignored
the humble advice of those Doctors also despite hand grip weakness moderately
at that point of time. As per treatment record, the complainant then approached
AIIMS on 30.05.2011 i.e., after eleven months of the treatment given by the
Respondents where nerve exploration with neuroma excision was done but did not
heal up and resulted neuroma formation.
G.
For that, the above facts make it
crystal clear as to how negligent remained the patient/ complainant towards his
own treatment despite having been explained in length that cut was so deep on
left wrist that it may eventually cause numbness and deformity in left hand, if
the nerves do not get repaired timely. The complainant neither took
physiotherapy nor approached the Respondents again, despite having been
explained the prognosis by Doctors of ASIAN Hospital also as advised by the
Respondent earlier on 12.07.2010 during his last visit to the hospital of the Appellant.
The complainant remained so careless towards his treatment of left wrist for
about 10 months that he did not consult any Doctor for his sufferings, if any,
on left wrist though in between he did approach FORTIS HOSPITAL and METRO HEART
INSTITUTE for some other problems. The complainant then, after eleven months of
the treatment even could not be much benefited. The patient was doctor
shopping.
PRAYER
It
is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that Judgment and Order dated
14.07.2017 passed by the District Consumer Dispute redressal Forum, Faridabad
(Haryana) in the matter Surender Singh V/s Dr. Yuvraj in the Consumer Complaint
No. 340 of 2011, may kindly be set aside, with costs throughout, in the larger interest
of Justice.
PLACE : FARIDABAD
DATED : 02.08.2017 ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
No comments:
Post a Comment