Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Appeared at the time of arguments through Video Conferencing
Eldho David – Petitioner
versus
Dr. Denny P. Kuttikkat and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.2922 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 31/05/2014 in Appeal No.390/2013 of the State Commission Kerala)
Decided on 1.4.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Nishtha Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Advocate for Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
“Since the treating doctor correctly diagnosed the care for acute appendicitis and treated the patient as per standard accepted procedure, medical negligence ruled out.”
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(b) and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – Medical Negligence – Laparoscopic procedure – Claim for – Complainants daughter diagnosed for acute appendicitis – Respondent No.1 performed laparoscopic appendectomy – But there was no relief in pain – She was referred to another Hospital and got operated again for removal of pus from abdomen – Claim for deficiency in service against respondent No.1 doctor – District Forum held respondent No.1 liable for Medical Negligence – However, State Commission set the same and dismissed the complaint – Hence this petition – Patient was under cover of higher antibiotics after laparoscopic procedure – No injury found to small bowel stomach or nay internal organs – Stump of appendix also found normal – Purulent turbid fluid in the abdominal cavity was due to peritonitis infection without any injury to internal organs – Abscess in the peritoneal cavity was not due to any negligence or any shortcoming during laparoscopic procedure – Respondent No.1 correctly diagnosed the care and treated the patient as per accepted practice – Medical Negligence on part of respondent No.1 ruled out. (Paras 8 to 12)
Result: Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant/Petitioner (Eldho David) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order wherein the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) allowed the appeal and set aside the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 250 of 2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.02.2010 the Complainant’s daughter (hereinafter referred to as the “patient”) was taken to the casualty at Carmel Hospital, Aluva (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 2”) for severe abdominal pain. It was diagnosed as acute appendicitis and advised immediate surgery. On 23.02.2010, Dr. Denny P. Kuttikkat (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 1”) performed laparoscopic appendectomy and after two days the patient was discharged. The patient continued taking medicines but there was no relief from pain. On 26.02.2010, again she was taken to the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital and on 29.02.2010 the Opposite Party No. 1 referred the patient to PVS hospital for C.T. Scan and further treatment. The doctors at PVS hospital operated her and removed the pus from the abdomen. She was discharged on 12.03.2010. The Complainant alleged that it was deficiency in service of Opposite Party No.1, therefore his daughter lost her one academic year. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 250 of 2010 before the District Forum and claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,45,000/- from the Opposite Parties.
3. The Opposite Parties filed their written version and denied the allegations. It was submitted that the patient was examined in casualty by Dr. George Mathews and diagnosed as acute appendicitis. The Opposite Party No. 1 on clinical examination and based on relevant blood and urine investigations confirmed the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The treatment was started with proper antibiotics, IV fluids and other medications. The relatives were informed about the condition of patient and the need for urgent surgery. On 23.02.2010, the Opposite Party No. 1 performed laparoscopic appendectomy. The appendix showed features of mild inflammation and there was no evidence of local or generalized peritonitis. No free fluid or pus in the peritoneal cavity. The fallopian tubes and ovaries look normal. On 24.02.2010, the patient complained of mild pain in the umbilical port site which was treated symptomatically and the patient was discharged with follow-up advice. The patient was treated with utmost care and caution, there was no negligence.
4. The District Forum on hearing the averments of the parties held the Opposite Party liable for negligence and deficiency in service partly. The Complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum with the observations as below:
“9. We are of the view that the complainant succeeded in prima-facie proving the deficiency in service of the part of the Opposite Parties in conducting the physical examination of the patient during pre-operative segment. The failure on the part of the Opposite Parties in taking abdominal X-ray of the patient to detect fecalith, ultra sound scan or computed tomography scan to confirm the disease though not mandatory amounts to the further deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties since the modern medical world is so advanced to diagnose any such disease.
Xxxxxxx
11. In view of the above we are of the firm view that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in treating the patient indisputably on 28-02-2010 the patient was taken to PVS Hospital for better management. There she had to undergo prolonged treatment from 28-02-2010 to 12-03-2010 which includes laparoscopy and lavage and thereafter on 17-03-2010 for secondary suffering ev
