N.Venkatachalam vs CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL

THE complaint is as follows : THE complainant Mr. N. Venkatachalam was thrown out of a bus while alighting from the bus on 3.1.1995. He suffered serious injuries namely fractured pelvis coupled with severe pain and the resultant shock. THE complainant was immediately rushed to the Christian Medical College Hospital, the 1st opposite party herein, at about 11.30 a.m.

INITIALLY the patient was treated as an outpatient without finding out whether there were any internal injuries or other symptoms. It was later at 7 p.m. he was admitted as an inpatient under the care of Orthopaedic Unit II, the 2nd opposite party. On the very first day of admission, the 1st opposite party collected a sum of Rs. 2,600/- towards medical charges and Rs. 2,000/- towards advance. The complainant was an inpatient from 3.1.1995 till 15.3.1995 for a period of more than 2 months. The doctors who were in charge of the complainant acted negligently and carelessly and failed to discharge their duties with any sense of dedication.

Haematoma was not diagnosed in time and not treated immediately with proper care which resulted in the death of tissues leading to complications like septicaemia. The complainant himself noticed huge swelling extending from the lower back and outside portion of entire right thigh. Because of the huge size, daily he asked the doctors to do something for it but the doctors pacified him by replying that it would be allright in due course and would not cause any harm.

THE first surgery was done by the 2nd opposite party on 18.1.1995 at the septic theatre and it was not done properly. Because of the negligent and careless handling of the problem by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, an emergency operation was conducted on 21.1.1995 by the 3rd opposite party who removed a large lump of flesh from the right thigh leaving a wide gap. THE complainant was in Intensive Care Unit from 21.1.1995 to 28.1.1995 without intimating him or the close relatives suppressing the gravity of the situation. All these led to serious complications like septicaemia and he was frequently shifted to intensive care unit from the regular ward. Another operation was done on him on 13.2.1995 by the 3rd opposite party who dressed the big gaping wound by elastrocrepe bandage. The complainant stayed in the 1st opposite party Hospital for nearly two months and as his condition did not improve he got himself discharged on 15.3.1995.

LATER, the complainant got admitted in the Apollo Hospital. There he was treated by specialists from 15.3.1995 to 3.5.1995. Now he has recovered. At the time of discharge from the 1st opposite party Hospital, in spite of request, the 1st opposite party did not hand over the case sheets, investigation reports, X-rays, scan reports, etc. The Orthopaedic Surgeon of Apollo Hospital wrote to the 1st opposite party Hospital on 17.3.1993 to route these documents and records through the regional office of the Union Bank of India at Vellore but the 1st opposite party did not send them till today. The complainant paid Rs. 1,58,169.51 P. to the 1st opposite party Hospital by way of charges. He spent Rs. 50,000/- at Vellore for fixing accommodation, food, etc. for his family. He paid Rs. 1,18,378/- for treatment at Apollo Hospital and incurred incidental expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- for periodical check-up, etc. which are the direct result of the negligent treatment at the 1st opposite party Hospital. The complainant claimed a damage of Rs. 10,00,000/- apart from medical and other expenses.

AS the treatment charges in the Hospital were paid by his office, the complainant claimed a total of Rs. 10,70,000/- for damages and other incidental expenditure and cost of the proceedings.

THE opposite parties in their version contended that Mr. N. Venkatachalam was brought to the emergency services of the 1st opposite party Hospital at 11.30 a.m. on 3.1.1995 with a complaint of falling from a moving bus at 11.15 a.m. THE patient was conscious. No evidence of head injury. His blood pressure was low 90/70 and pulse was rapid 140/mt. examination revealed fracture of the hip. Because of the low B.P. and rapid pulse the complainant was given intravenous haemocel to expand the blood volume and oxygen by nasal route.

The surgical unit and the orthopaedic unit on call were informed. The complainant was seen by the surgeon at 12.10 p.m. and fracture pelvis was diagnosed. There was a large haematoma in the gluteal region. The Urologist diagnosed urethral injury and the same was treated by suprapubic cystostomy - drainage of urine from the bladder directly.

ACTUALLY the complainant was observed in the outpatient casualty and he was treated with blood transfusion, antibiotics and prophylaxis against tetanus. Once the clinical condition was stable, he was shifted to the private ward under Orthopaedic Unit II at about 6.20 p.m. on 3.1.1995. The opposite party further emphasised the fact that peripheral haematomes dissolved on their own in course of time and hence the reassurance about the prognosis of the same was given to the complainant. The complainant was treated with antibiotics right from the beginning and in spite of that the haematoma got infected. This required a series of surgical procedures like drainage, debridement and ultimately skin grafting to cover the raw surface. The complainant was shifted to Intensive Care Unit only to give intensive medical and nursing surveillance and care. The family members were appraised of the same and complainant''s medical condition. Acute breathlessness known as adult respiratory distress (ARD) syndrome was the sequelae of serious infection.

THE complainant had a prolonged stay in the Hospital from 3.1.1995 to 15.3.1995. During this period he underwent surgery on 18.1.1995 for aspiration and examination of haematoma right thigh. On 21.1.1995, a second operation of debridement wound on the pelvic region and on 13.2.1995 secondary suturing and skin grafting were done. During his stay he had an episode of septicaemia, an attach of malaria and developed ARD syndrome. In view of the serious and life threatening nature of these problems he was treated in Surgical Intensive Care Unit on more than one occasion. The opposite party submitted that at the time of discharge a medical summary was handed over to the complainant. The case records and other records were medico-legal documents and hence retained by the opposite party Hospital in safe custody. If any medical practitioner requested for X-rays for their perusal these were sent to the concerned doctor directly. No records, X-rays etc. were handed over to the third parties in view of the medico-legal implications of these documents. The sum of money mentioned Rs. 2,600/- was for investigations and emergency care administered. It is the usual practice to obtain cash advances when patients are hospitalised and Rs. 2,000/- paid towards advance were adjusted against cost of further hospital care.

THE opposite parties further stated that the complainant survived a major trauma and because of the care taken by the opposite parties. THEy denied any deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

WE heard both sides and perused the available records. The points for determination are: (1) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties?; and (2) If so, the amount of compensation the complainant is entitled for ? Point No 1: The items complained of are - non accommodation of the patient in the inpatient ward without treatment soon after admission, haematoma not properly treated, surgeries were done in a negligent manner. None of them has been established in this case. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence of PW1 the complainant and the evidence of PW 2 Dr. Nirmala Subramanian to show that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant (PW 1) has stated in the cross-examination as follows: "As soon as I went to the opposite party after the accident they started treatment. They tested my blood pressure, and pulse. I was taken to the emergency ward first and there I was examined and I was treated as an outpatient till evening. In that ward I was treated with also injections. I was attended to by the duty doctor there. After I was admitted as impatient at 7 p.m. they took steps to drain my urine. There was blood clot in my right thigh upto the back."

PW 3 Dr. Rajagopal of Apollo Hospitals even in the chief examination has stated that he cannot say whether there was any negligence on the part of the Doctors who had attended on the complainant in the Vellore Hospital. Non- examination of any witness by the opposite party does not in any way militate against them.

The complaint of non-despatch of case records cannot be a matter of want of service, in view of the fact that the opposite party Hospital gave the summary of the case and the treatment in the discharge record Ex. A-3. Further, it happened to be a medico-legal case, and therefore could not be passed on through a messenger, however intimate he might be to the complainant.

WE accept their admission and hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1, 2 & 3. Under these circumstances, we find this point in favour of the opposite parties.

POINT No. 2: In view of our findings in POINT No. 1, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.