STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/86/2014 DEVAN PRESENT ADDRESS - KULATHIL KUNDIL HOUSE,PANAYOOR DESOM, KOONATHARA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus P.K DAS PRESENT ADDRESS - INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, TALUK, PALAKKAD ,KERALA.

DR THULASI PRESENT ADDRESS - INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, TALUK, PALAKKAD ,KERALA.

DR FRIJO PRESENT ADDRESS - INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, TALUK, PALAKKAD ,KERALA.

SANDEEP DATTAROY PRESENT ADDRESS - INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, TALUK, PALAKKAD ,KERALA.

SALEENA PRESENT ADDRESS - INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, TALUK, PALAKKAD ,KERALA.

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

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 03/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.86/2014 JUDGEMENT DATED : 03.06.2025 PRESENT:

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

Devan, Late S/o Raman, Kulathilkundil House, Panayoor Desom, Koonathara Amsam, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad (by Adv. Sanu S. Panicker & Satheesh Babu)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. P.K. Das, P.K. Das Institute of Medical Science, Vaniamkulam, Ottappalam, Palakkad (by Adv. R. Santhosh)

2. Dr. Tulasi, P.K. Das Institute of Medical Science, Vaniamkulam, Ottappalam, Palakkad

3. Dr. Frijo, Institute of Medical Science, Vaniamkulam, Ottappalam, Palakkad (by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

4. Sandip Datta Roy, Visiting Professor, P.K. Das Institute of Medical Science, Vaniamkulam, Ottappalam, Palakkad

5. Saleena, Nurse, P.K. Das Institute of Medical Science, Vaniamkulam, Ottappalam, Palakkad (by Adv. R. Santhosh)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a complaint filed under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

alleging medical negligence against P.K. Institute of Medical Sciences, Vaniamkulam, the

doctors and a nurse attached to the aforesaid hospital.

2. The allegation contained in the complaint in brief is that the wife of the st complainant, Smt. Surabhi was admitted in the 1 opposite party with a complaint of nd abdominal pain and bleeding. The 2 opposite party had examined the wife of the complainant and diagnosed that a tumour has been formed in the uterus which has to be nd removed through laparoscopic surgery. The designation of the 2 opposite party is displayed as MS (OBG) D.Lap Consultant Obstetrician Gynaecologist and Laparoscopic nd Surgeon. So, the complainant thought that the 2 opposite party might be an expert in the field. Accordingly, the wife of the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 27.07.2013 nd as advised by the 2 opposite party.

3. On 27.07.2013 surgery was carried out and she was kept under the post operation ICU for 24hours. On 28.07.2013 at about 8.30a.m. the wife of the complainant was shifted to the room. But, on reaching the room, she developed breathlessness. She also told the complainant that the same situation arose when she was inside the ICU and the said th th fact was told to the 5 opposite party, the nurse in charge of the ICU. But the 5 opposite party replied that it was only a feeling of the patient who had undergone a surgery. The wife of the complainant had severe breathlessness and froth was also coming from the mouth. The matter was reported to the nurse in charge who was asked to call for the doctor to which the nurse answered that the doctor will not be attending the hospital on Sundays.

nd nd

4. Later, the 2 opposite party was contacted by the nurse over phone. But the 2 opposite party nether visited the hospital nor examined the patient. Instead, she gave a direction to the nurse to give an injection and accordingly an injection was administered. Even after administering the injection, breathlessness of the patient did not subside. The