D AJAYADEV, PANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE Vs. SINDHU W/O SANTHOSH
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-2-5
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 10,2010

D Ajayadev, Panickaparambil House Appellant
VERSUS
Sindhu W/O Santhosh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE appellant was the opposite party and the respondent was the complainant in CC No. 65/06 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint therein was filed alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite party Dr. D. Ajayadev in administering an intra muscular injection on the left buttock of the complainant's 1_1/2 year old male child by name Alen. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged medical negligence and deficiency of service. He contended that the complainant's child was brought to his residence on 29 -01 -2006 at 09.00 p. m with the complaint of crying for a few hours; that on examination the illness was diagnosed as intestinal colic; that injection cyclopam was administered over the gluteal area to get a faster relief and the child was relieved of pain. On 30 -01 -2006, the patient was again brought to the hospital of opposite party with complaint of pain and edema over the left ankle joint; that on examination tenderness and edema over the lateral aspect of the left ankle was found and thought that some blunt injury might have sustained and so 'diclofenac gel' for local application was prescribed. The patient was referred to orthopedician for further management. The injection was administered in standard dose and there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party. The case of the complainant that injection was given in overdose and it was administered improperly are not correct. The opposite party doctor himself had given the injection and the allegation in the complaint that the injection was given by the nurse is denied. The complaint is filed without any bonafides and solely for undue advantage. Hence the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the doctor who treated the complainant's child at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam was examined as PW2. Exts. P1 to P8 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and an expert doctor as DW2. Exts. R1 and R2 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite party. Ext. X1 case record produced from Institute of Child Health and Children's Hospital Medical College, Kottaym was marked. Photocopy of the relevant pages of 'Basic Nursing Essentials for Practice' (5th Edition by Potter and Perry) and 'Essentials of Pediatric Nursing' (7th Edition by Marilyn J. Hockenberry Wilson Winkelstein) were marked as X2 and X3. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2006 in CC 65/06 finding the opposite party negligent in treating the complainant's 1_1/2 year old male child by name Alen. Thereby the opposite party has been directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 75,000/ - with costs of Rs. 2,000/ -. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Forum below, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party therein.
(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the oral testimony of DW2, the expert doctor attached to Kolencherry Medical College Hospital and X2 and X3 authorities and canvassed for the position that the injection cyclopam was given with due care and caution and the site of the intra muscular injection over gluteal area was also an approved site and there was no sort of medical negligence on the part of the opposite party doctor. It is further submitted that the Forum below cannot be justified in relying on the testimony of PW2 by ignoring the expert evidence adduced by DW2. He also relied on R1 letter issued by the husband of the complainant admitting the fact that the injection was administered by the opposite party doctor himself. Thereby the appellant/opposite party challenged the genuineness and correctness of the case of the complainant that the injection was administered by the nurse attached to the clinic of the opposite party. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to dismiss the complaint in CC 65/06. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The respondent much relied on the testimony of PW2, the Professor and Head of Department, Pediatrics, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and the fact that PW2 had the occasion to treat the complainant's child by name Alen and argued for the position that the injection administered by the opposite party over the gluteal area was not a recommended site for intramuscular injection for children and the improper administration of injection caused sciatic nerve injury to the left lower limb of the patient and thereby the patient became permanently handicapped. Thus, the respondent/complainant requested for dismissal of the present appeal. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the alleged medical negligence on the part of the appellant/opposite party doctor in administering the injection on the left gluteal area (left buttock) of the complainant's 1 _1/2 year old male child by name Alen can be upheld? 2. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in treating the complainant's 1_1/2 year old male child Alen from 29 -01 -2006 to 03 -02 -2006? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 02 -11 -2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 65/2006?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.