S. Major A. Gopinath vs Dr. James, & Anr.

This is complainant''s petition under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He got his tooth extracted from the respondent No. 2 in the clinic of the respondent No. 1. He complained of medical negligence on their part. He filed a complaint in the District Forum which allowed the same and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 26,678 to the complainant and also directed both the respondents jointly and severally to pay further amount of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant for mental agony and inconvenience caused to him.

Respondents aggrieved by the order of the District Forum holding that there was negligence in the performance of their duties, appealed to the Kerala State Commission. State Commission by the impugned judgment reversed the order of the District Forum and held that there was no negligence on the part of the respondents and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, complainant has come to this Commission.

Complainant alleged that he approached the clinic of the respondent No. 1 for the purpose of extracting the wisdom tooth on the right lower jaw. Respondent No. 2 on the advice of the first respondent extracted the tooth of complainant on 23.6.1995. After plugging the wound with cotton, complainant was sent home. There was, however, continuous bleeding from the wound. On 26.6.1995, complainant again approached the respondents. Respondent No. 2 put two stitches at the place of extraction but the bleeding did not stop. Complainant again went to the clinic. Respondents took him to Dr. Pavithran who noticed his blood pressure 190/110 and also clotting time of the bleeding. He prescribed certain medicines. Bleeding stopped. On 3.7.1995 complainant went to K.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore as he said he felt uneasiness. His condition was found to be serious and was admitted to the intensive care unit where he remained till 16.7.1995. He was advised bypass surgery. Complainant did not give any notice to the respondents and filed complaint in the District Forum claiming damages stating that all his trouble was due to negligent act of the respondents inasmuch as while extracting tooth, they did not check his blood pressure and also did not give any consideration to his heart problem of which the complainant said he apprised them. Respondents have denied allegations of the complainant. They have stated that they had taken the blood pressure and after taking precautions, extracted his tooth which was mobile. They accepted because of the bleeding they took him to Dr. Pavithran, who prescribed medicines and the bleeding of the complainant stopped. They said they did not hear anything from the complainant till they received copy of the complaint.

In the District Forum, complainant appeared as a witness. District Forum examined Dr. Pavithran and Dr. Y. Y. Rao respectively as C.W. 2, C.W. 3. Dr. Rao is a cardiologist in the K.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore. Respondent No. 2 also appeared as a witness.

State Commission examined the evidence both oral and documentary and came to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the respondents. State Commission questioned that if the complainant was having continuous bleeding from 23.6.1995 why he approached the respondents only on 26.6.1995. Dr. Pravithran stated that the blood pressure can increase due to tension, worry and for various other causes. Dr. Rao stated that the complainant had been admitted to K.M.C. Hospital on 14.6.1995 from where he was discharged on 19.6.1995. Complainant was having unstable angina and other diseases connected with his heart. It is not necessary to detail the ailment of the petitioner except to note that after being discharged from the K.M.C. Hospital on 19.6.1995 where he was examined by Dr. Rao and Dr. Balasubramoniyam, the complainant was asked to get himself examined again after two weeks. It was, therefore, submitted that when the complainant came to K.M.C. Hospital for check up on 3.7.1995, it was on account of advice earlier given to him by Dr. Rao.

We find that the State Commission has duly considered all the evidence on record and its conclusion that respondents were not negligent in the performance of their duties which is just and proper. We do not find any ground for us to take a different view. This revision petition is dismissed.