H P KRISHNA vs MANJUNATH ORTHOPEDIC AND TRAUMA CENTRE

THIS is complainant''s appeal against the order dated 12. 7. 2006 passed by the 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, dismissing his Complaint No. 1488/2005 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O. Ps. who are the respondents in this appeal.

THE facts of the complainant''s case in brief are that some time prior to 5. 5. 2003 the complainant was suffering from low back pain. He approached O. P. No. 2, a Consultant Orthopedic and Trauma Surgeon in O. P. No. 1 Hospital at Hassan where O. P. 2 diagnosed that the complainant was suffering from L4-L5, L5-SI Disc prolapse with sided sciatica and he was advised to have surgery. Accordingly, the complainant got admitted in O. P. 1 Hospital on the same day. Leminectomy of L5 was conducted by O. P. 2 on the next day and he was discharged on 13. 5. 2003. At the time of discharge, it was opined by the O. P. 2 that the wound was clean and there was no infection or inflammation at the operation site and the complainant was advised to have review on 14th post-operative day for removal of sutures. The complainant further contends that at about the mid night of 17. 5. 2003, he developed fever and started vomiting. He had pain on the neck, and headache and there was swelling on the sutured area. On 18. 5. 2003, he was readmitted to O. P. 1 Hospital and was subjected to various tests as advised by O. P. 2. Further, his condition did not improve in spite of treatment. His condition came down to coma stage on 22. 5. 2003, on which day O. P. 2 referred the case to Dr. Phaneesha of O. P. No. 3 Hospital in Bangalore. The complainant contends that at the insistence of O. P. 2, the complainant was shifted to O. P. 3 Hospital in an Ambulance, as according to the complainant O. P. 2 was not able to diagnose the case properly when the complainant was under the treatment of O. P. 2 in O. P. 1 Hospital in between 18th and 22nd May, 2003. As a result, the complainant came down to coma stage.

After treatment at O. P. 3 Hospital, the condition improved. But, however, the complainant contends that he ultimately lost power of erection resulting in the deprivation of the capacity to have sexual intercourse at a comparatively young age of 45. The complainant contends that loss of erection was as a result of negligence in the matter of treatment given by the O. Ps. and hence the complaint against O. Ps. 1 to 3 seeking direction to pay compensation.

THE O. Ps. have denied that there was any negligence or lapse on their part in the matter of treatment. O. Ps. 1 and 2 have contended that there was no problem whatsoever till the complainant was discharged from O. P. 1 Hospital on 13. 5. 2003 after the operation. He was discharged on that day because the complainant insisted on the discharge on the ground that he had some domestic problem to attend at home. It is further contended by O. Ps. 1 and 2 that had the complainant remained in the Hospital for 14 days after operation and until sutures are removed there was no possibility of any infection on wound site. They have, therefore, contended that the entire problem arose because of the complainant''s insistence for discharge on 13. 5. 2003 before the wound healed completely. They have further contended that the complainant was shifted to O. P. 3 Hospital because there was no facility at O. P. 1 Hospital for conducting MRI Scanning etc. , which was required for further management of the patient. They also contended that such shifting was done in consultation with the relatives of the complainant who were in attendance. They have further contended that decision to shift the patient to O. P. 3 Hospital was taken because O. P. 3 Hospital was a higher medical centre. They have, therefore, denied deficiency on their part. In so far as the treatment at O. P. 3 Hospital is concerned, the complainant does not have any specific contention of negligence on the part of O. P. 3 or its staff. The only allegation of the complainant is that in spite of treatment at O. P. 3 Hospital, though he recovered in all other respects, he lost power of erection and thereby deprived of the power to have sexual intercourse.

BOTH sides have adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. After hearing arguments, the District Forum held that the complainant himself was responsible for getting himself discharged from O. P. 1 Hospital on 13. 5. 2003 for which O. Ps. 1 and 2 cannot be blamed of negligence. The complainant does not have any case of negligence against O. Ps. 1 and 2 in so far as the conduct of operation is concerned. The District Forum, further held that the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence to show that the complications or infection arose on account of any negligence or deficiency on the part of the O. Ps. On the other hand, the District Forum observed that Dr. Suresh M. Duggani who was working as a Neuro Surgeon at Shivakrupa Hospital, Hubli, filed his affidavit stating that he has thoroughly examined and analysed the relevant medical records of the case and in his view O. P. 2 doctor has discharged his professional service to the complainant in conformity with the established medical procedure and practices. This evidence adduced on behalf of O. P. No. 2 has not been effectively challenged by the complainant. On going through the records made available before us, we are in full agreement with the District Forum that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency on the part of any of O. Ps. 1 to 3. The appeal, therefore, fails. In the result, we pass the following order. ORDER appeal is dismissed. The Order under appeal is confirmed. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.