STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/9/2019 AKASA PRAMOD PRESENT ADDRESS - CHUNGATHARA,ODANAVATTOM(PO),KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM-

691512NCDRC,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus DR.RAJEEV PRESENT ADDRESS - DIRECTOR,VIJAYA HOSPITAL,PULAMON(PO)KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM-691531NCDRC,KERALA.

DR.MUHAMMED ASLAM PRESENT ADDRESS - VIJAYA HOSPITAL,KOTTRARAKKARA,KOLLAMNCDRC,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.09/2019 JUDGEMENT DATED: 03.01.2025 PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER COMPLAINANT:

Akasa Pramod aged 2 years minor represented by her father Pramod George residing at Chungathara, Odanavattom P.O., Kottarakkara, Kollam – 691 512 (by Advs. Dr. S. Sreekumar & Ravikrishnan N.R.)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Dr. Rajeev, S/o Late G. Sadasivan, Director, Vijaya Hospital, Pulamon P.O., Kottarakkara, Kollam residing at ‘Kavyasanu’, Pulamon P.O.

2. Dr. Muhammed Aslam, Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakkara, Kollam – 691

531 (by Adv. S. Reghukumar)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed by the father of a minor child under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act against two doctors alleging medical negligence.

2. The allegations contained in the complaint in short is that on 05.04.2018 at about 10a.m. the minor daughter of the complainant by name Akasa Pramod aged two years suffering with intermittent fever was taken to Vijaya Hospital and consulted with the second opposite party, Dr. Muhammed Aslam in the paediatric unit of the hospital. The child had also a history of a fall five days back. The doctor after examination advised for blood test. After conducting the blood test, the doctor was again consulted and at that point of time the child was having slight fever and difficulty to move her head to one side. But the doctor opined that there is no problem to be anxious about and prescribed some ointment to apply on the neck and sent the child back .

3. The child was again brought to the residence of the doctor as the doctor had gone home for taking lunch. The doctor had examined and admitted the child in the hospital as the child was suffering with high fever. Ice was applied for reducing the temperature. Later the child showed seizure and the duty nurse had contacted the doctor over phone. But the doctor opined that it was due to the reaction of medicines which will be alright within a short time. The doctor visited the hospital only after two hours. Even then, the doctor had advised the complainants to use balm on the neck region. By 10p.m. the condition of the child became worsened. The duty doctor told the complainant that he could do only in nd nd accordance with the direction of the 2 opposite party. By 11p.m. the 2 opposite party was consulted at his residence who had advised for a CT scan in the morning.

4. During the whole night, the child was suffering with seizure in every minute.

By 5a.m. the child was taken to the scanning centre but the technician expressed difficulty to do the scanning on account of the continuous seizure. The doctor advised the duty nurse to give sedative to the child and by 8a.m CT scan was conducted. By 8.30a.m. the 2 opposite party came to the hospital and told the complainant that there is nothing to worry. But the condition of the child was deteriorating. The parents became anxious and persuaded the doctor to do something urgently. The doctor neglected the CT scan report and declined to peruse the same. In the CT scan report the impression was shown as “Diffuse Confluent hypodensities in periventricular white matter bilaterally in frontal lobes, corona radiata, Centrum semiovale and posterior