##PAGE1##

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM (Present: Sri. Mohandasan K., President Smt.Preethi Sivaraman C., Member Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member)

Date of filing: 03/09/2020 Date of Order: 30/06/2026 C.C.NO.201/2020 Nasan Bin Noushad @ Nishan Bin Noushad, Aged 2 ½ years (Minor Rep: by Mother Jameela Aged 31 years, W/o Noushad, Pazhakarayil House, Complainant Maranchery, P. o) , Pin 679560, Malappuram Dist.Phone: 9946150109.

(By:Adv. A.K.Shibu, Malappuram)

Vs

1. Dr. Ashique, Aged 30, Kaliyarakath House, Kalachal P.o, Alankode – 679 585, Malappuram Dist.

(By:Adv. Shyampadman, Kochi)

2. Jaleel Aged 65, Kuvvakkaattayil House, Opposite parties Para Perumpadappu P.o, Pin – 679580.

3. M/s K.V.M Hospital Rep: by Proprietor, Jaleel Kuvvakkattuayil House, Para, Perumpadappu P.o, Pin – 679580, Malappuram Dist.

(By:Adv. Abdul Salam)

ORDER

By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT The complaint, in brief, is as follows:-

1. The complainant submitted that the first opposite party is a doctor attached to the third opposite party hospital, the second opposite party is the owner/management of the said establishment, and the third opposite party is the hospital where the complainant's son underwent circumcision.

2. According to the complainant, on 18.04.2018, she took her son, Nishan Bin Naushad, aged 23 days, to the third opposite party hospital for circumcision. The procedure was performed at the hospital and took an unusually long time. After the procedure, the child was handed over to the complainant with the circumcision site completely covered with dressing. The complainant was advised to observe whether the child was able to pass urine and to inform the hospital in case of any difficulty.

3. At the time of discharge, a prescription was issued by the doctor. Since the prescribed medicines were not available in the hospital pharmacy, the complainant approached a nearby medical shop. The pharmacist expressed surprise regarding the dosage prescribed for the child. Thereupon, the complainant again approached the hospital and informed the nurse, who stated that the prescription had been issued by the doctor and that the pharmacist had no role in prescribing medicines.

4. Thereafter, when the child attempted to pass urine, it was noticed that urine was leaking through the dressing over the circumcision site. The matter was immediately informed to the duty nurse, who stated that the concerned doctor would be informed. At about 7.00 p.m. on the same day, the complainant was advised to bring the child back to the hospital. The duty nurse then re-dressed the circumcision site, leaving an opening for the passage of urine.

5. However, even thereafter, the child was able to pass urine only in a spraying manner. The complainant was assured that the condition would improve with time, but no improvement was noticed. The child continued to cry persistently following the circumcision procedure.

6. The complainant further submitted that, even after taking the child home, there was no improvement in his condition. Therefore, the complainant contacted the hospital over the telephone and was advised to administer breast milk to the child, and it was assured that the condition would become normal and that the child would be able to pass urine without difficulty. The first opposite party allegedly informed the complainant that such symptoms were common following circumcision.

7. The complainant alleged that the first opposite party was inexperienced in performing circumcision procedures and that the third opposite party hospital lacked the necessary facilities and arrangements for carrying out such a procedure. According to the complainant, these deficiencies resulted in serious complications to the child.

8. On the third day after the procedure, the child developed further discomfort and was taken back to the hospital. The complainant was informed that the child had developed an infection. After cleaning the affected area, the complaina