K. Mahendran vs O.Satyanarayana Obulam Hospital , Venkateswara Hospitals

THIS appeal arises from the order dated 22.04.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (the State Commission) by which the latter dismissed the complaint of the appellant, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in the treatment of the appellants son, K. Yugandhar, a 19 year old student of a local college who met with a road accident on 26.06.1996 and suffered fracture of his left femur.

THE appellants case before the State Commission was that on 05.07.1996, respondent no. 1 (the surgeon) operated upon Yugandhar at respondent no. 2, a private nursing home where Yugandhar was admitted on 28.06.1996 (at the advice of the surgeon) after initial treatment at another hospital. THE allegation was that the surgeon did not conduct the surgery with due care in implanting the plate to ensure proper union of the fractured bone. THE x-ray taken on 12.07.1996 in fact showed that the screws had not been fixed properly to hold the plate in position, as a result of which the plate got damaged. Even after his discharge on 17.07.1996, Yugandhar continued to complain of pain, which did not abate despite taking the medicines suggested by the surgeon. THE subsequent x-rays of 26.08, 05.10, 07.11 and 20.12.1996 all showed progressive deterioration. As a result, Yugandhar was taken to another nursing home at Chittoor where an immediate surgery was suggested. Finally, Yugandhar was taken to Madras Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Chennai on 05.02.1997 where he was operated upon a second time on 12.02.1997. He unfortunately died on 17.02.1997. THE appellant filed the above-mentioned complaint, initially also impleading the Madras Institute, and claimed total compensation of Rs. 20 lakh. It appears that the State Commission directed deletion of the Madras Institute, as it was located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the former. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone carefully through the documents on record.

The State Commission, in our view, has done a thorough analysis of the complainants case, drawing upon the evidence of the parties as well as the orthopedic surgeon cited by the complainant as his expert witness (PW 2). First, according to PW 2, the decision to undertake the surgery to fix a plate with screws was appropriate in the given situation of the patient. Secondly, the x-ray taken on 12.07.1996, a week after the surgery on 05.07.1996 showed that the plate and the screws had been fixed properly. The x-ray of 26.08.1996, again according to PW 2, showed bone implant in site with radiologically visible new bone formation and the position of the bone in good alignment. At the time of discharge on 17.07.1996, the patient was advised strict bed rest, to enable proper union of the fractured bone, and the patient also signed the discharge summary in acknowledgement. So, the State Commission correctly concluded that there was no deficiency on the part of the surgeon in either deciding to undertake the surgery that he did or in the surgery that he actually conducted. Regarding post-operative advice/management, the State Commission noted that the bending of the plate shown by the x-ray of 05.10.1997 had been admitted by the surgeon who, however, contended that this might have occurred because the patient did not heed he advice of complete bed rest so as not to place any weight on the operated part, i.e., not walk at all till complete union of the fractured bone. The State Commission also noted the opinion of PW 2 that there was no contribution of the surgeon to the bending of the plate or the bone. The further deterioration, i.e., increase in the angle of bending reflected by the x-rays of 07.11.1996, 05.12.1996 and 10.02.1997 was also, according to PW 2, due to weight bearing before complete reunion of the fracture. It also noted the version of the surgeon that after noticing the complication on 07.11.1996, he advised the patient to get admitted to the nursing home. The latter, however, did not follow this advice. The patient came back to him on 27.11.1996 with complaint of non-specific fever for which he prescribed some medicines. Thus, the patient Yugandhar did not follow the surgeons advice after 17.07.1996 and did not see him at all after 27.11.1996. The State Commission thus concluded, Hence we are of the opinion, having regard to the evidence of PW2 and RW 1 that there is no deficiency in giving advice to the patient but it is the patient that did not follow the advice of the surgeon.

IN his arguments before us, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant could not cite any additional point/ground to persuade us that the State Commission had erred in any manner in coming to the conclusions that we have summarised above. He feebly tried to argue that respondent no. 2 did not possess an x-ray machine and on 28.06.1996 the appellant had to get the x-ray done at another place. This is clearly a non-starter as a ground for alleging deficiency in service for it was not the complainants case that respondent no. 2 had claimed otherwise. INcidentally, in reply to a specific query he admitted that the complainant had also filed another complaint before the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in respect of the allegations against the Madras INstitute and that complaint had met with the same fate. Given the situation, the learned counsel for the respondents did not have to do much. In conclusion, we find the detailed order of the State Commission fully justified and well-reasoned. Consequently, the appeal fails and we dismiss it as such, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.