BEFORE THS STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

MADURAI

F.A.No. 19 of 2024
Against
C.C.No.264 of 2022
1. Dr.N.B.Sekar,
Rohan Sekar Hospital,
Renger Office Road,
Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.

2. Rohan Sekar Hospital,

Renger Office Road,
Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District. … Appellants/Opposite Parties
-Vs-
S.Karuppasamy,
S/o.S.V.Subramanian,
Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
K.K.Patti,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District. … Respondent/Complainant

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT/

COMPLAINANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

It is submitted that, the present written statement is filed by the

Respondent/Complainant. The contents of the Appellants/Opposite
Parties are denied in their entirety and nothing stated herein should be
considered as an admission on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant
unless the same has been specifically admitted herein below.

1. It is submitted that, the present Appeal has been filed on basis of

false and baseless, which have been created merely to harass the
Respondent. The present Appeal has been filed with a malafide intention
without any cause of action in order to arm twist the Respondents to follow
the dictates of the Appellants/Opposite Parties. There are several false
assertions have been made by the Appellants in their Appeal. The
Respondent reserves his right to file an appropriate application before this
Hon’ble Court for perjury.

2. The averments made in the Appeal under the caption 1 st

Admission are totally false, malicious and hence denied. The respondent is
residing at the above mentioned address and is married to one Muthumari
and has two children born out of wedlock namely Nivashini girl child aged
11 years and Thilak boy child aged 8 years. Though living in Theni at
above address the respondent does Agricultural coolie work at Kerala an
residing at K.K. patti only for the sake of school education of his children.
During September of last year (2022) the complainant went to
Satyamangalam in Erode for a family function and suffered back and
stomach pain and for medical treatment went to the 2nd Appellant
Hospital. Medical treatment was commenced on 11.09.2022 at the 2nd
Appellant hospital for the respondent. The complainant was advised to be
inpatient in the hospital and take a abdominal scan at Cumbum United
Scan centre and he was diagnosed as having 10 mm size kidney stone in
the left lower corner of his kidney but even then his kidney was
functioning well according to the Appellants. The respondent was advised
that the correct medical procedure was to use a method of endoscopy with
a stent whereby a small tube would be inserted through the Ureter in the
penis of the complainant with miniature camera and destroy the stone on
contact and the stent would be removed after 15 days of this non invasive
procedure.

3. Further it is submitted that the respondent agreed that the 1st

Appellant can remove the aforesaid kidney stone through endoscopy
without surgery, by inserting a long tube called stent through the genital
opening of the urethra to break the urethral stone, thereby extracting the
stone, and the remaining aforesaid kidney stone will come out during
urination and the said tube can be taken out after 15 days. The respondent
agreed to the process to remove the stone. The 2nd Appellant had collected
Rs.15,000/- for blood test, consultation fee and medicines, But no receipt
has been served to the respondent and his family members. In this case,
when the respondent asked whether the amount could be paid through the
Chief Minister's Insurance Scheme, the 1st Appellant said that the hospital
insurance scheme would only cover the stone-pelting treatment, and the
Respondent would bear all other expenses for medicine, room rent and
medical examination. Although there is an insurance cover 2 nd Appellant
received Rs.15,000 / - from the respondent. No receipt has been issued to
the respondent and his family members for the payment made by the
respondent.

4. Further it is submitted that the respondent was treated for removal

of kidney stone on 12.09.2022 at about 3.00 pm in the operation theatre.
When the family of the respondent said that it was like a surgery, the 1st
Appellant said that the procedure would be carried out in this manner, to
which the respondent and his family agreed. Later, the treatment is
completed in the ICU the respondent has been transferred to the general
ward on 13.09.2022. At that time, the Appellants received several payments
and the Appellants said that the insurance scheme was valid only inside
the operation theatre and that all the expenses incurred outside were the
patients' expenses. No receipts have been issued for any amount paid by
the respondent. When the respondent asked about it, they said that they
would be given at the time of Discharge.

5. Further it is submitted that the Appellants asked to discharge the

respondent on the same day as an in-patient, he was given pills and given a
guarantee that if he was treated under the insurance scheme, he would be
discharged in one day and could be re-admitted after four days. At that
time the discharge summary was served to the appellant till 13.09.2022.
Accordingly, the respondent has been staying at his residence at K.K. Patti.
Thereafter, on 13.09.2022, 14.09.2022, 15.09.2022 and 16.09.2022, the
respondent continued to suffer from vomiting, drowsiness and severe
headache. When the wife of the respondent went to the hospital and
inquired about it, the doctors said that such things happen due to the
treatment of kidney stones.

. 6. The averments made in the Appeal under the caption Review are
totally false, malicious and hence denied. It is vehemently denied that, the
pain suddenly increased slightly for the respondent. Hence on 17.09.2022,
due to sudden increase in blood pressure, the respondent had difficulty in
breathing. As the pain continued to increase, the respondent was taken to
the hospital by his wife on 17.09.2022. The respondent was initially treated
in the general ward and later shifted to the intensive care unit. At that time
Blood tests and scans, X-rays for the respondent have been taken. Further,
the respondent was given frequent trips on the evening of 17.09.2022 until
the appellant is discharged from the hospital. Thereafter, the respondent
continued to experience pain, vomiting, drowsiness and diarrhea even
after reaching home.

7. The averments made in the Appeal under the caption 2 nd

Admission are totally false, malicious and hence denied. The respondent
continued to experience severe pain again, on 19.09.2022, the respondent
rushed to the Appellant hospital and he was again administered anesthesia
through continuous trips. Further, for two consecutive days, the fever of
the respondent has gone up to 107 degrees. The respondent was given
paracetamol tablets continuously for two days. Also, many medications are
prescribed. Thereafter, the 1st Appellant called the wife of the appellant
and said that it is necessary to remove the stent tube from his stomach,
which don’t enter into the body of the respondent and if it continued like
this, the body would be harmed. The 1 st Appellant removed the tube on
20.09.2022 which has to be removed on 26.09.2022. Thereafter, again the
respondent continued to suffer from vomiting, drowsiness, dizziness and
convulsions.

8. The averments made in the Appeal under the caption 2 nd

Admission are totally false, malicious and hence denied on 22.09.2022 and
23.09.2022, the respondent complained of excruciating pain in the
hospital. That, On 23.09.2022 one Subha Staff of the 2nd Appellant
hospital informed the respondent’s wife that she should sign a document
for discharge of her husband and when she questioned about it she was
told that the respondent’s kidney could not be treated and if he was treated
thereafter the hospital management could not be responsible for the
consequences. The respondent’s wife broke down on hearing this.
Thereafter from 23.09.2022 morning onwards the 2nd Appellants staff nurse
Subha and other employees Arunachalam, Arunachalam’s wife Kalpana
and one Manimaran and further the hospital manager Mr. Kannan and one
duty doctor Dr. Pradeep Kumar repeatedly harassed the respondent and
his wife and her handicapped sister Lakshmi and inititally pleaded with
them to get discharged from the hospital. When the complainant’s wife
pleaded that she could not leave the hospital as the treatment was not over
and the complainant was suffering from severe abdominal and stomach
pain still the 2nd Appellant staff refused to listen to them. The respondent
and his wife repeatedly tried to meet the 1 st Appellant but they were told
he was in important meeting and could not meet them. Finally, after
getting beatings from all the above people fearing for their lives the
respondent and his family members left the hospital with few medical
reports and receipts but without discharge summary on 24.09.2022
evening.

9. That, during this period respondent wife contacted several

hospitals including a kidney speciality hospital in Kottayam kerala but all
of them refused to admit the respondent without proper discharge
summary from the currently treating 2nd Appellant hospital. On 25.09.2022
the respondent was admitted to Pranaya hospital in Cumbum and
thereafter on taking medical tests and X-rays and scans (since the earlier
medical records and discharge summary was not given to the respondent
by the Appellants) it was diagnosed that the respondent who had normal
blood sugar levels and blood pressure at the time of admission to the
Appellant Hospital now had post parandial blood sugar of 530 and high
blood pressure of 140 It was also diagnosed that due to the defective
treatment with the stent by the Appellant’s slime had developed with
infection in the ureter and kidney of the respondent and that was the cause
of the abdominal swelling, severe stomach and head pain, vomiting and
unconsciousness of the complainant.

10. That, the respondent underwent treatment for 6 days at the above
said Pranaya hospital and thereafter due to financial constraints the
respondent was shifted by his family to Theni Kana Vilakku Government
Hospital and underwent treatment for several months. But even after that
it has become clear that the respondent could never work again and has
totally lost his health and become unemployable and totally dependent on
his family for his survival due to the deficiency in service of the
Appellant’s and the unfair trade practices resorted to by them. The
Appellant’s are still hounding the respondent and his wife to withdraw
their various complaints
 9. That, the Appeal has been filed on the basis of false and misleading
averments and several material facts have been concealed by the
Appellants. Therefore, for the proper appreciation of the facts, it is
imperative for the Respondent to narrate the correct sequence of events,
which are stated in the above paragraphs. The Appellant had failed to
provide all the reports and gave Xerox copies of some of the reports which
are also being corrected, altered and changed.

10. The 1st Appellant would have diagnosed the stent tube fixed in
the ureter of the respondent was not compatible with the body of the
respondent and was leading to infection and malfunctioning of his kidney
and removed it from his body after giving proper medical treatment the
whole problem would not have arisen. In the light of In Laxman
Balkrishana Joshi vs. Trimbak Bapu Godbole & Ors. (AIR 1969) SC 128,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“11. The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A
person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment
impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the
purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain
duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a
duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the
administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a
right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to
his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a
reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of
care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of
each case is what the law requires.”
 11. That the Appellants failed to provide proper medical bills for the
treatment procedures and hospitalization over and above his medical
insurance claim, the Appellants failed to hand over his original medical
records to the respondent and caused mental agony. In the light of

‘’12. The principles of what constitutes medical negligence is now

well established by number of judgments of this commission as also the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including Jacob Mathew vs. State of
Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, and in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P.
Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651. One of the principles is that a medical
practitioner is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and
knowledge and must also exercise a reasonable degree of care and caution
in treating a patient (emphasis provided). In the instant case, it is very
clear from the facts stated in forgoing paragraphs that a reasonable degree
of care was not taken in treatment of patient in PICU.

13. Medical records revealed that patient was on higher antibiotics

and several IV medications. We have referred to medical literature, which
clearly state that inadvertent intra-arterial injection in the radial artery
was the main cause of gangrene of the hand or fingers. It is also to be noted
that the Right little finger also showed signs of gangrene. Thus, there was
also injury to ulnar artery. The swelling of the right hand is due to
multiple pricks for IV lines and further damaging the arterial circulation.
We, therefore, hold that due care was not taken during the invasive
procedure i.e. Right radial arterial cannulation to baby Sandria in PICU
which ultimately resulted in gangrene. This clearly constitutes medical
negligence and deficiency in service.

14. Therefore on the basis of medical texts and reviews on the

arterial cannulation it is apparent, as stated earlier that not maintaining
proper records of invasive procedures, charts, graphs is the deficiency in
medical treatment. Apart from this the doctors from appellant hospital
have not been able to explain how the gangrene of Right hand occurred.
Therefore, the instant case is case of res ipsa loquitur where medical
negligence is clearly established and for which Ops are liable. OP1 being
employer is vicariously liable for the negligence committed by the doctors
and the nursing staff working in the hospital."

12. That, for the reasons mentioned in the present reply this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Appeal in limine.

Therefore it is prayed before this Hon’ble court may kindly be

pleased to dismiss the Appeal made by the Appellants in limine and
thus render justice.

Dated at Madurai on day of July 2024

Counsel for the Respondent

BEFORE THS STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI

F.A.No. 19 of 2024
Against
C.C.No.264 of 2022

APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES

Dr.N.B.Sekar
and 1 another

*******************************
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
******************************