ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (NORTH) Present:Thiru.D.SATHISH KUMAR, M.A., B.L., :PRESIDENT. Thiru. P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., : MEMBER-I Tmt. K.AMALA, M.A., LL.B., PGDCLP., :MEMBER.II In the result, the complaint is partly allowed 1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as compensation towards medical negligence committed by the opposite parties, delay and deficient diagnosis in treatment together with the medical expenses incurred by the complainant and for the physical hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

Date of filing : 17.12.2024
Date of Order : 25.08.2025

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (NORTH)

Present:Thiru.D.SATHISH KUMAR, M.A., B.L., :PRESIDENT.
Thiru. P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., : MEMBER-I Tmt. K.AMALA, M.A., LL.B., PGDCLP., :MEMBER.II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 282/ 2024

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
M.Brammanand,
S/o.Mathiazhagan,
No.7/27, LN Colony,
Kumalamman Koil Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. …Complainant
-vs-
1. Dr.(Mrs) R.Saraswathy Dilliraj, M.D (Med.Alt) F.R.H.S
Govt. Medical Officer (NRHM), Govt. Primary Health Centre, Peerkankaranai, Chennai-600 063.
Also having her Clinic at: 64/23, Jeevarathinam Salai, Tondiarpet, Chennai.
Also working on deputation on temporary basis at:
Siddha Wing,
Chennai Port Trust Hospital,
Port of Chennai, Rajaj Salai, Chennai-600 001.

2. Dr.Guna Sekar,
K.K.Hospital, For General Medicine, No.7 (14), E.H.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081.

3. Dr.J.Parthiban M.B.B.S.
S/o.M.P.Jayapaul, Managing Director,
Sri Hospitals,No.32, Varadharaja Perumal Koil Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. …opposite partie

Counsel for Complainant : Mr.T.G.V.Ramanigopal,
Counsel for 1stOpposite Party : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan,
Counsel for 2ndOpposite Party : Ex-Parte on 24.02.2025 Counsel for 3rd Opposite party : M/s.Dr.B.Cheran,

Originally the Consumer Complaint was filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) on 17.12.2024. Later on Consumer Complaint was transferred to Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North).
On perusal of records and having heard oral argument of Complainant, 1st and 3rd opposite parties side we delivered the following.
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY Thiru.P.VINODH KUMAR, MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The complainant had prayed to i) direct the 1 to 3 opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the complainant towards physical disability of 20%-30% as per the treating doctor recommendation, sufferings of mental agony, future well being and financial loss caused to him due to opposite parties 1 to 3 act of negligence in the Duty of care. In addition, their frivolous, delayed, careless and deficiency diagnosis and treatment to the complainant under section 39 (1) (k) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, Even though the total amount claimed is Rs.5,65,96,324.20 the complainant is restricting his claim to Rs.2,00,00,000/-
The complainant submitted Proof Affidavit, and written argument and Ex.A1 to
A245 documents were marked. The 1st opposite party submitted Written Version, Proof Affidavit, and written argument and Ex.B1 to B4 documents were marked. The 2nd opposite party was set ex-parte on 24.02.2025. The 3rd opposite party submitted Written Version, Proof Affidavit, and written argument and Ex.B5 to B8 documents were marked on their side.
COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :-
2 On 22nd September 2022, at about 6.30pm the complainant was running high temperature with body pain. He wanted to diagnose the condition and take medicine to get relief, by consulting a doctor. He visited the opposite party 1 clinic since it is near complainant’ residence. Without thorough investigation, she concluded and informed the complainant that it is only a normal fever. The Opposite Party I said that she will administer an injection which will give relief from the fever, body pain and prescribe some oral medication which will take care of the ailment. The Opposite Party-1 asked the Complainant to show his right buttocks (Anatomically termed as Right Gluteal Region) for administering injection. After administration of injection, the complainant felt a swift pointed pain in the injected area. The fees for the medical service were paid by the complainant and no receipt was provided for the same. The complainant left for home with pain on the injected area. The Complainant says that he woke up due to the severe and unbearable pain Wee Hours (3.30 AM) on 24/09/2022 and called out his family members and told them about the intolerable pain which he is undergoing in and around injection administered area. His mother checked the place of injection and she found reddishness on the skin, which she described as big as Horlicks bottle lid size. Again, she prepared an ice pack from the refrigerator and gave fomentation which proved no use, the complainant and his family members spent sleepless night. At about 7 am, on 24/09/2022 the Complainant felt the increasing pain in the injection area and spreading all over his right buttocks. The Complainant after his breakfast took the fourth dose of medicine as per the prescription of Opposite Party 1 and ice pack fomentation was continued on the injected area. Even after the fourth dose and fomentation, the Complainant experienced no reduction in pain but gradual increase of acute pain and also body temperature. He became totally weak, uncomfortable and unable to bear the severances of pain and increase in body temperature. The Complainant his family decided to take him to another dispensary nearby known as K.K. Hospitals which was located in No. 7(14), E.H. Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai, Opposite Party – 2, which was also very close to the Complainants residence. They reached there at about 4.30 P.M. on24th September 2022 the Duty Doctor examined the complainant and gave some medicines as per the prescription the medicines prescribed are (1) Tab.P650, (2) Tab Ark- 75, (3) Tab Azithrol -500 for 3 days. The prescribed medicines were purchased from the nearby medical shop and the duty doctor administered saline drips for almost 1 hour and 15 minutes. After the drips were fully administered, the Complainant’s family paid a consultation fees of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only). No receipt was provided to the Complainant. The Complainant could not tolerate the severity of pain generated over all his right buttocks the whole night and he had sleepless night. At about 6.20 A.M. on 25/09/2023 he took one of his friend’s assistance, who accompanied him to one Sri Hospitals by auto. Complainant was unable to bear the pain and unable to walk properly on his own. It was extremely difficult even to sit as the injected area was generating severe pain to the complete right side of the Complainant’s body and he was suffering with unbearable pain. With great difficulty he reached Sri Hospitals which is also located in Complainants locality at Tondiarpe. The Complainant to his bad luck neither the pain settled nor the pain killers worked. Within hours there was a swift transformation of unbearable pain with sever irritation, both inside and outside the skin, decolourization seen on the skin, mild bulging of skin all over the right back mainly in Right Gluteus region (Gluteus Maximus Muscle, Rectus Femoris Muscle, Illotibial Band) till back and front thigh muscle and right side shoulder muscles (Latissimus Dorsi Muscle, Infraspinatus Muscle, and Serratus Posterior inferior) with severe unbearable pain on his whole back from right side Neck to right lower limb till heel. Since the pain generated was bad to worse, the Complainant, with excruciating pain was compelled to re-visit Opposite Party – 3 hospital managed by Dr. J. Parthiban Managing Director of Sri Hospitals. He met the duty doctor at about 10.45 am. The duty doctor of the Opposite Party – 3 noted that the patient came back complaining no reduction of pain but increase in gravity with unbearable pain. The duty doctor took instructions from Opposite Party- 3 Dr. J. Parthiban M.D. of Sri Hospitals and the representatives of Opposite Party 3 (the hospital and doctors are only specialized in the core area of ortho care), advised the duty “) doctor to take Pelvis X-ray and other normal ortho routine). The Complainant as per the instructions of Opposite Party -3 Dr. Parthiban, the staffs of Sri Hospitals did all the tests at about 11.45 am that included X-ray and other ortho routines. It was clearly mentioned in X-ray opinion appearance of “A shadow in the Right Gluteal region” and the same was conveyed to the Dr. J.Parthiban Opposite Party
– 3.The Complainant further states that the Opposite Party-3 advised tests like (1). Bleeding Time, (2). Clotting Time, (3). Blood group (4). PT (Prothrombin Time) (5).
Electrolytes (6). LFT (7). HIV (8).HBs Ag, (9). HCV (10). Chest PA View, (11). ECG (12)
CT Scan of Pelvic region. Complainant paid the Laboratory charges of Rs.9520/- (Rupees nine thousand five hundred and twenty only). In addition the complainant was tested for Covid 19 with a Rapid Card Antigen Test at 2.30 pm on the same day.(basically a Nasal swipe test) found nil on Payment of Rs. 500/- (Five Hundred only). The Complainant further states that at about 2.45 P.M on 25/09/2022, a 50-slice Ultra Low Dose Computed Tomography Scan Pelvis for both hips were done with payment of charges which was duly paid by the Complainant family. The observation given in the 50 slices Ultra Low Dose Computed Tomography is that, “Diffused air pockets noted in the right Gluteus region involving gluteus maximus muscle gluteus intermediate muscle and subcutaneous fat. Air pockets extending all along the sciatic nerve roots into the pelvis and into retro peritoneum. Inferiorly air pockets up to the mid thigh the sciatic nerve. Air pockets also noted and seen in subcutaneous muscular inter plane in the lateral aspect of thigh. Air pockets also cross the midline.” This report was signed by Dr. K Sivakumar of Sri Hospital. That the unnamed doctor finally arrived at about 7.15 PM and then the Complainant was moved to the procedure room from the waiting area. The Opposite party – 3 and his team did the surgical procedure of Wound Debridement, Incision and Drainage. The Complainant further states that he was brought to the ward at about 9 PM. Due to sedation, the Complainant slept off till 4 AM. On 26th September 2022. Later, Complainant woke up due to unbearable, sever pain in the procedural area despite administering Fentanyl Transdermic patch and heavy medication to subside the pain. He felt that he has ended up with some serious issue given the intensity of the pain. The Complainant’s attendant (mother) reported to the nurse in-charge that her son (the Complainant) is suffering from aggravated pain which is unbearable all over his back and there is no relief from the pain administered. The Complainant started to scream due to unbearable pain, there was no duty doctor to look after the Complainants issue at that early hour. The nurse called up the Opposite Party3 (Dr. J. Parthiban) took instructions to conduct blood tests as the same which was done during the time of admission i.e., on 25/09/2023 11.49 am. The Complainant’s blood sample was collected on 26.09.2022 at about 6.27 A.M and report was made ready around 7.50 A.M. In that Lab report few parameters were on high and low when compared to referral range and when compared with Lab report on 25.09.2022. The lab report reveals that the WBC count is above the reference range. He also advised that the condition seem to be in advance stage and advised the family to shift him immediately to Main Apollo Super Specialty hospital at Greams Road Chennai which has the facility to give relief to the Complainant. On hearing this, the Complainant’s family took a decision to get him shifted to Apollo on the same day. The Family members requested the Opposite Party 3 to discharge the Complainant and told the Opposite Party 3 that they planned to admit the Complainant at Apollo Hospitals
Greams Lane, Chennai. Opposite Party – 3 (Dr. Parthiban) showed his resistance that it will be too risky for the patient (the Complainant to be transferred to another hospital in the current condition. The Complainants family expressed their displeasure on the service provided, anxiety, frustration on the Opposite Party 3. Witnessing family insistence, the Opposite Party 3 accepted to discharge the Complainant and made a note that the complainant will get discharged under the family’s personal risk. The Opposite Party 3 also mentioned the samein the discharge summary that the patient and attendees not willing for second incision procedure the Patient and attendees in order to get treated in speciality centre, hence being discharged at request. The Complainant family settled the hospital bill totalling Rs. 64,6157- (Rupees Sixty Four
Thousand Six Hundred and fifteen only) Insurance cover approved by Niva Health Insurance was Rs. 52,846/- (Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty six Only) Balance amount paid in cash was Rs.11,569/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Five hundred and sixty nine only). Then the Complainant was transferred from Sri Hospitals of Opposite Party -3 (Dr.J.Parthiban) with the help of a life support ambulance to Main Apollo Hospitals, Greams Lane, Chennai by the Complainants family. The Complainant on arrival at Apollo Hospitals at Greams Road on 26th Sept. 2022 around 5.30 pm, the Complainant was taken to emergency and they checked for the basic parameters, Covid test by rapid antigen test kit was conducted and all required tests were taken on the Complainant. He was admitted in CCU (Critical Care Unit) which is a special ward for Critical Care immediately. MRI Scan of Pelvis was taken with an impression given as ‘Multiple air foci are seen in the inflamed tissues with air collection in the right hemiscrotum. Findings suggestive of emphysematous necrotizing deep soft tissue infection. At the end of the report clearly mentioned that Please note that this report is a radiological professional opinion’. It is understandable that all procedure were correlated clinically and interpreted along with other investigations/reports, which lacked in the reports of Opposite Party – 3. On the same day the Complainant underwent a surgery and several other surgeries on different dates till 10th Oct 2022.Apollo Hospitals diagnosed that the complainant had Gluteal region Gas Gangrene with septic shock, a treatment of Wound debridement + Fasciotomy done on 26th Sept 2022. The Complainant was then shifted to ICU for further care and treatment. The Tissue Culture report indicated clostridium perfengins and IV antibiotics (Inj. Meropenam 1gm IVTDS & Inj. Metrogyl 500MG TDS) were administered, as per the directions given by Infectious
Disease Specialist (Dr. SureshKumar). Serum Urea and Creatinine level was 22.0mg/dl, for which Hepatologist Dr. Murugan, opinion was taken and his advice followed. It was mentioned that the general condition of the complainant was improving and the wound was managed by VAC dressing. It was mentioned in report given by Apollo Hospitals that there was persistent fever which was diagnosed to be covid-19 pneumonia on 27 ^ (th) Sept. 2022. The complainant had taken covid-19 vaccination as per the government instruction on 22 ^ (nd) July 2021 and 26th July 2022 with covishield injection and a certificate was issued by the Ministry of health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India under certificate No. 99511397458. The Complainant was continuously monitored by ICU team at Apollo Hospitals. The Complainant that on 3rd opposite party Oct 2022, Dr. Kannan Prema of Apollo Hospitals explained the Family and attendee’s about the second stage of Debridement of necrotic tissue + Vac dressing. On the same day Laparoscopic de-functioning loop sigmoid colostomy was done on the Complainant and post operation he was stable but had low BP 90/50 mmg on 5th October 2022. The Doctor started ‘Inotropic Support’ (Noradrenalline 5ml / h * r ) on 6th Oct 2022, and as the Complainant got stable the dosage was reduced. Again, on 10th Oct 2022, Wound debridement was done and he was shifted to the ward. Dressing was done and the wound showed mild slough with healthy granulation. The doctor advised that the Complainant is ready for discharge as he was stable in the ward and the wound was healthy since regular dressing was done. The complainant was discharged on 18th October 2022. The hospital bill was Rs. 30,22,799/- ( Rupees Thirty Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine only) out of which Rs. 3,91,614/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs Nanty One Thousand Six Hundred and fourteen only) was paid by Niva Health Insurance through cashless claim. The balance amount were settled by telegraphic transfer under instrument no. 222901532533 dated 18th Oct. 2022 for Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four lakh. fifty thousand only), by usage of debit card Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and a balance bill amount of Rs. 20,81,185/- (Rupee Twenty lakhs eighty one thousand one hundred and eighty five only) was paid as cash, by the complainants family. This is considered to be the 1″ Discharge from
Apollo Hospitals. Hence the complaint
WRITTEN VERSION OF1st OPPOSITE PARTY
3. The 1st opposite party states that the documents filed along with the complaint do not have evidence or material documents that shows any sort of negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party. It is respectfully submitted that on 22.09.2022 the complainant approached the 1st opposite party around 8.30 p.m. in her clinic situated at No.64/23, Jeevarthinam Salai, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081. The chief complaint is fever on and off and cough. Prior to the consultation with this 1st Opposite party, the complainant has taken treatment at allopathy clinic situated at Moolakadai. This has been deliberately suppressed by the complainant in his complaint. The complainant has also not revealed the earlier treatment taken at Moolakadai clinic. The 1st opposite party measured the temperature with Infrared Thermometer (shooting gun model) and found that temperature was not high. In respect of cough, she prescribed 3 allopathic drugs which has been filed by the complainant of Documents No.1, viz (1) Amoxlin Tab (250 mg), (2) Acep Tab and (3) Okacet Tab for three days only. But the complainant in his complaint wrongly mentioned as Omez. She never prescribed the Omez. She further advised the complainant to take the Corona Test. The 1st opposite party stated that she never administer IM injection to the complainant during her consultation. It is the theory invented for the purpose of the care. The 1st opposite party further submits that when the 1st Opposite Party asked about the health condition of the complainant, he informed that, he is suffering with Cough, Fever and Body Pain from 21.09.2022 onwards and also informed that he has already taken treatment for the same with some other doctor but he did not recover. The 1st opposite party advised the complainant that as Corona Pandemic is spreading severely, she would not be able to give any specific medicine without verifying the Corona Test results. Hence, she advised him to take Corona Test and she prescribed general medicine namely (1) Amoxlin (250 mg), (2) Acep and (3) Okacet for three days. The 1st Opposite Party never administer any injection as stated by the complainant in his complaint. Further the 1st oppositeparty did not give any medicine to him directly. She even doesn’t know if the complainant bought the medicine or consumed it, for that effect the complainant has neither stated nor filed any documents as to where he bought the medicine, anywhere in his complaint. The 1st opposite party never demanded any consultation fee of Rs.300/- for the medical services rendered to the complainant in his complaint. The 1st opposite party states that the diagnosis arrived by the Sri Hospital is “INJECTION ABSCESS – RIGHT GLUTEAL REGION. ? GAS GANGRENE. In the discharge summary it has been recorded that wound inspection done on 1st POD, had plenty of gaseous discharge and foul smell. Patient complained of swelling and pain over right thigh. Patient and attender explained about the nature of the wound and gas extension upto right lower limb and the need for second incision procedure. Patient and attenders not willing for the same and wants to get treated in higher centre, hence being discharged at request. The aforesaid finding will prove that the complainant had that preexisting ailment and made out of false case for Gas gangrene. The 1st opposite party states that the complainant can’t take advantage of history recorded by Sri Hospital. The history has been stated by the complainant to the doctors at Sri Hospital that IM Injection was administer on 22.09.2022. However local examination done by the Sri Hospital it has been recorded thatLocal Examination:
Right Gluteal Region
Tense swelling ++
➤ Tenderness ++
➤ Crepitus +
The 3rd opposite party also suspected a case of Gas Gangrene and not a definite diagnosis has been arrived by the 3rd opposite party. The 1st opposite party states that finding on MRI scan taken at Apollo Hospital is contradict with CT Scan taken at Sri Hospital. The 1st opposite party never administer any injection to the complainant at any point, the 1st opposite party prescribed medicine only mentioned in the prescription.
To make out his case and also to draw the attention of this Hon’ble Forum the complainant created concocted and false story against the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is practising her profession by following the guidelines of the central council of Indian medicine and the Siddha medical Council without any remarks and also doing social service for the society. Till date the Council of Indian Medicine and the Siddha Medical Council without 1st opposite party is earning good name in the surrounding area of Tondiarpet and nearby area, With an intention to grab money and to defame the name of the 1st opposite party the complainant mentioned some bald allegation against the 1st opposite party without any proof or documentary evidence. Further the 1st opposite party is working as Ayush Medical Officer under National Rural Health Mission from 04.12.2009, Odukathur, Vellore District and thereafter she got transferred to Panapakkam, Vellore District. From 06th May 2011 onwards she is working at Government Primary Health Centre, Peerkankaranai, Chengalpet District. Further allegation is that she is not entitled to prescribe Allopathic Medicine or Further administers IM (Intramuscular) injections as like a double barrelled gun, the same was totally denied by the 1st opposite party. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the 1st opposite party is a Siddha Doctor. As per G.O.Ms.No.248 dated 08.09.2010 Health and Family Welfare (IM 2-2) Department, the 1st opposite party entitled to practice Modern Scientific Medicine. The 1st opposite party never committed any negligence as stated by the complainant and did not manipulate her qualification. The 1stopposite party is practising her profession by following the guidelines of the central council of Indian medicine and the Siddha Medical Council without any remarks. Till date the 1st opposite party is earning good name in the surrounding are of Tondiarpet and nearby area. The 1st opposite party has not committed any omission or commission. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of the 1st opposite party.
WRITTEN VERSION OF 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY
3. Since the 2nd opposite party was set ex-parte on 24.02.2025
WRITTEN VERSION OF 3rdOPPOSITE PARTY
4. The 3rd opposite party categorically status that the allegations are unfounded, untenable and devoid of truth, and are neither supported nor could be buttressed by relevant and genuine document. The 3rd opposite party also reiterates emphatically that there is no breach of duty or of negligence of his part. Sri Hospital was established in 2016, and since its inception, hospital has been continuously upgrading facilities and services to provide the highest standard of health care to local community. From previous Paragraphs of the complaint, it is known that an injection was given by First Opposite Party on 22.09.2022. In spite of the injection site later becoming
a) Increased pain spreading all over his right buttock
b) Reddishness of the site
c) Site has swollen to the size of big Horliks bottle lid size.
d) Has become totally weak.
e) Temperature has risen – Fever.
In spite of the all above severe condition, complainant negligently delayed the treatment for two long days and consulted the Second Opposite Party only on the morning of 24.09.2022.
f) After all of the above sufferings, complainant preferred to attend Second Opposite Party and took treatment. The Complainant consults 3rd Opposite Party only on 25.09.2022, 3 days after the injection. Initially, he was thoroughly evaluated by Dr. Abdul, duty medical officer, immediately on arrival, and managed with IV antipyretics and analgesics for his acute symptoms. He was prescribed medications for outpatient
(OPD) management for his current condition. Dr. Abdul also counseled him about the nature of the disease, recommended home remedies such as ice pack application, and emphasized the need for incision and drainage (I&D) if required (SOS). Later that day (25.09.2022, Sunday) at 10:45 AM, that is within 3 hours of consultation the patient revisited the hospital complaining of increased pain. He was examined and managed for acute pain, and his attenders were counseled about his condition. The need for further investigations to assess the depth of the issue was explained, and investigations were initiated at 11:45 AM. Charges for these services were collected in OPD since the patient was not admitted at that time. The complainant was tested Covid – 19 with a Rapid Card Antigen Test at 02.30 PM on the same day (basically a Nasal swipe test) found nil on Payment of Rs. 500/-(Five Hundred only). The complainant further states that at about 02.45 PM on 25.09.2022, a 50-slice Ultra Low Dose Computed Temography Scan Pelvis for both hips were done with payment of charges which was duly paid by the complainant family. The observation given in the 50 slices Ultra Low Dose computed Tomography is that, “Diffused air pocketes noted in the right Gluteus region involving gluteus maximus muscle gluteus intermediate muscle and subcutaneous fat. Air pockets extending all along the sciatic nerve roots into the pelvis and into retro peritoneum. Inferiorly air pockets up to the mid thigh the sciatic nerve. Air pockets also noted and seen in subcutaneous muscular inter plane in the lateral aspect of thigh. Air pockets also cross the midline.” On Sunday, only emergency surgeries are performed. Dr. Sivakumar (Senior Consultant Plastic and reconstructive surgeon) was informed about the patient’s condition. He advised emergency surgery to be done on the same day. Immediate surgical intervention for source reduction was planned, and pre-operative preparations, including NIL PER ORAL status, were initiated. Once it was decided by the medical team that surgery has to be necessarily perfomed, certain investigations which are mandatory to do surgery were advised. These investigations result were available at 6.30 PM. The patient was evaluated by Dr. Abnish (Anesthetist) at 6:00 PM and shifted to the OT holding area by 6:40 PM. Due to peak evening traffic, Dr. Sivakumar from Anna Nagar arrived at 7:15 PM, and the procedure commenced at 7:30 PM. Dr. Sivakumar is a famous Plastic Surgeon, who treat many VIPS. Because the condition required expert care, Dr. Sivakumar was requested to do the surgery. The discharge summary clearly states that the procedure was performed by Dr. Sivakumar from 7:30 PM to 8:00 PM. The patient was moved to the ICU at 8:10 PM, where IV antibiotics, analgesics, and supportive medications were administered. ICU doctors provided pain management instructions; which were followed overnight. Dr. Parthiban evaluated the patient at 11:05 PM on 25.09.2022, on a Sunday. Reassessed the infection, and provided further instructions. The complainant had wrongly alleged that WBC was in the higher range. On 26.09.2022, lab investigations showed a significant decrease in WBC levels (from 21,900 to 10,000). Despite this improvement, the medical team noted the need for further debridement based on clinical findings. The patient’s condition was discussed with Dr. Subramanian (infectious disease consultant), and his recommendations were implemented – IV antibiotics (Inj. Cefaparazone Sulbactum and Clindamycin) doses were escalated (Due to COVID pandemic infectious disease specialist was consulted through phone as per Government of India notifications. The Rajiv Gandhi hospital doctor recommended shifting the patient to Apollo Hospital because of the insistence of the family members. After which it was decided to shift the patient to Apollo Main hospital. It is not medically advisable to remove lot of muscle at one go. Muscle has to be removed carefully to minimize the loss as much as possible. It is negligent only when large muscle mass has been removed without any restraint. The procedure is to remove minimum, wait and watch, to do removal later if necessary. This is how muscle loss can be kept at check. The complainant had also complained that he had undergone repeated surgery at Apollo Hospital. Unfortunately the complainant was not willing for repeat surgery with Dr. Sivakumar who is also a famous plastic Surgeon. All these exercises could have been reduced if the complainant had chosen to attend the 3rd Opposite Party without 3 days delay. The infection has spread to such an extent in 3 days. All this efforts were made for the betterment of the patient only, since the 3rd Opposite Party know the severity of gas gangrene, Patient was not just let out in the dark as alleged. He was guided correctly to the correct doctor so that treatment can be started, immediately as soon as he arrives at apollo main hospital. The 3rd Opposite Party has exercised standard of care at each and every step and there was no negligence anywhere. Thus there is no cause of action. The 3rd Opposite Party has not committed any omission or commission. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of 3rd Opposite Party.
THE POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service as medical negligence as alleged by the complainant?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

POINT NO: 1:
1. The complainant has produced volumes of documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A245. The first two volumes primarily relate to the initial treatment, progression of the disease, hospitalization at Sri Hospitals and Apollo Hospitals, diagnostic investigations and expenditure incurred towards treatment.
2. The first document contained in Volume–I is the prescription issued by the first opposite party dated 22.09.2022. The said document establishes that the complainant consulted the first opposite party on the date alleged in the complaint. Thus, the relationship of doctor and patient between the complainant and the first opposite party stands established.
3. The complainant has also produced consultation details and photographs relating to the clinic of the first opposite party. Though such photographs by themselves do not establish negligence, they corroborate the complainant’s assertion regarding treatment under the first opposite party.
4. The complainant has further produced records obtained from the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council relating to the qualification and registration of the first opposite party. These documents establish that the first opposite party possess qualification in Siddha Medicine and is duly registered with the competent authority.
5. The complainant has also produced communications addressed to the Chief Medical Officer and records obtained from the Directorate of Public Health. These documents have been relied upon to demonstrate the nature of practice carried on by the first opposite party and to support the allegations raised in the complaint.
6. The Ministry of AYUSH Guidelines produced by the complainant explain the scope of Siddha medical practice and the standards expected of practitioners registered under the Siddha system of medicine. Though the guidelines are not conclusive proof of negligence, they are relevant for understanding the professional obligations of the first opposite party.
7. The complainant has produced the prescription issued by K.K. Hospital dated 24.09.2022. This document assumes significance because it demonstrates that within two days of treatment under the first opposite party, the complainant sought further medical treatment elsewhere.
8. The proximity in time between the consultation under the first opposite party and the subsequent consultation at K.K. Hospital supports the complainant’s version that his condition deteriorated shortly after the treatment rendered on 22.09.2022.
9. The case records of the third opposite party discloses that the complainant was admitted on 25.09.2022 with severe pain and swelling involving the right gluteal region. The diagnosis recorded in the hospital records includes right gluteal abscess, gas gangrene and muscle necrosis. The history portion contained in the hospital records specifically records administration of intramuscular injection over the right gluteal region on 22.09.2022 followed by pain and swelling.
10. The significance of this entry cannot be ignored because it was made during the course of treatment and not for the purpose of litigation. Such contemporaneous medical records ordinarily carry considerable evidentiary value. The CT findings contained in the third opposite party records disclose extensive air pockets involving the gluteal muscles, subcutaneous tissues and surrounding structures. The imaging findings reveal a rapidly progressing infective process involving deep tissues. The records further disclose that emergency surgical intervention became necessary and that incision, drainage and debridement procedures were performed.
11. The complainant has also produced MRI reports which objectively establish the extent of tissue involvement and corroborate the diagnosis of serious infective pathology affecting the gluteal region. The laboratory reports and culture reports further reveal the presence of significant infection and support the clinical findings recorded by the treating doctors.
12. Upon consideration of Volume–I as a whole, this Commission finds that the documents establish the following:
(a) treatment under the first opposite party on 22.09.2022;
(b) subsequent deterioration in the complainant’s condition;
(c) consultation at K.K. Hospital on 24.09.2022;
(d) admission at Sri Hospitals on 25.09.2022;
(e) diagnosis of gluteal abscess, gas gangrene and muscle necrosis; (f) requirement of emergency surgical intervention; and
(g) eventual transfer to Apollo Hospitals.
13. Volume–II consists predominantly of Apollo Hospital records generated during the complainant’s hospitalization.
14. The first significant document in Volume–II is the Ultrasound Whole Abdomen Report dated 03.10.2022.
15. The said report reveals enlargement of the liver with heterogeneous lesions, gall bladder calculus with sludge, raised renal cortical echoes and bilateral pleural effusion. These findings demonstrate that the complainant was suffering from systemic complications affecting multiple organs.
16. The laboratory reports dated 03.10.2022 reveal markedly abnormal biochemical parameters including elevated urea, creatinine, bilirubin and creatine kinase levels. The elevated creatinine and urea values indicate renal impairment, while the abnormal liver function parameters indicate hepatic involvement. These findings establish that the infection had progressed beyond a localized wound and had begun to affect the complainant’s overall physiological condition.
17. Volume–II contains numerous hematology reports, renal function tests, liver function tests and coagulation studies carried out on different dates. The repeated performance of such investigations demonstrates that the complainant remained under intensive medical supervision and that his condition required continuous monitoring. The Commission is unable to accept the contention that the complainant suffered only a minor infection, because the nature and extent of investigations performed clearly indicate a serious and life-threatening medical condition.
18. The 2D Echo and Cardiology reports contained in Volume–II further establish that systemic evaluation became necessary during treatment. The interim summary issued by Apollo Hospitals constitutes an important clinical document because it records the treating team’s assessment of the complainant’s condition during hospitalization. The discharge summary dated 17.10.2022 issued by Apollo Hospital assumes particular significance. The discharge summary records the diagnosis, treatment rendered, investigations performed and condition of the patient at discharge. Such records are generally regarded as primary evidence of medical treatment and carry substantial evidentiary value.
19. The complainant has also produced pharmacy bills, deposit receipts, hospital bills and account statements generated by Apollo Hospitals. These records establish that substantial expenditure was incurred towards treatment. The repeated deposit receipts reveal that hospitalization was prolonged and involved continuous expenditure.
20. The complainant has further produced ambulance bills showing transportation between hospitals and treatment centres. The ambulance records support the complainant’s contention that his condition was sufficiently serious to require medical transportation.
21. The insurance records and cashless authorization documents further corroborate the fact of hospitalization and medical expenditure. One significant document contained in Volume–II relates to withdrawal of retirement benefits and utilization of personal funds for meeting treatment expenses. This document is relevant for assessing the financial impact of the prolonged medical treatment upon the complainant.
22. Upon cumulative consideration of Volume–II, this Commission finds that the documents establish:
(a) prolonged hospitalization at Apollo Hospitals;
(b) severe systemic infection;
(c) renal and hepatic dysfunction;
(d) repeated diagnostic investigations;
(e) continuous medical supervision;
(f) substantial medical expenditure;
(g) utilization of ambulance services; and
(h) significant financial hardship resulting from treatment.
23. The findings emerging from Volumes I and II therefore strongly support the complainant’s contention that the complications suffered by him were serious, prolonged and required extensive medical management.
24. Volume–III consists of documents relating to the period from November 2022 to April 2023 and demonstrates the prolonged nature of the complainant’s treatment. The first set of documents consists of treatment charge bills issued by Apollo Hospitals after discharge from the initial hospitalization. These records reveal that even after discharge, the complainant was required to attend regular follow-up treatment and wound dressing procedures under the supervision of specialists.
25. The treatment records indicate that wound care continued for a considerable period and that complete recovery had not been achieved even after discharge. The complainant has also produced ambulance bills dated 11.11.2022 and subsequent dates. These documents establish that the complainant continued to require assisted transportation for medical treatment and was unable to independently attend medical consultations.
26. The laboratory report dated 11.11.2022 contained in Volume–III assumes considerable significance. The report reveals severe anemia, elevated white blood cell count, elevated ESR, reduced albumin levels and abnormal biochemical parameters. These findings indicate that even after prolonged hospitalization, the complainant continued to suffer from significant infection, inflammatory response and nutritional depletion. The Commission finds that these laboratory findings completely negate any suggestion that the complainant had made a rapid or uncomplicated recovery.
27. The subsequent prescriptions, wound dressing records and treatment charge bills reveal that repeated medical intervention became necessary throughout November 2022.The records further establish that the complainant was required to undergo regular wound management procedures.
28. Volume–III contains discharge summaries relating to subsequent admissions at Apollo Hospitals. These discharge summaries are important because they demonstrate that the complainant required re-admission even after his initial hospitalization. Repeated admissions are indicative of continuing complications and prolonged treatment requirements. The hospital bills and insurance approval documents produced in connection with these admissions further establish the substantial expenditure incurred by the complainant. The Commission also notes the production of records showing withdrawal of retirement benefits and mobilization of personal resources to meet treatment expenses. Such records demonstrate that the complainant was compelled to incur significant financial commitments in order to continue treatment.
29. The complainant has also produced extensive physiotherapy records extending over several months. These records include physiotherapy prescriptions, outpatient records and physiotherapy bills. The physiotherapy records are of particular relevance because they demonstrate continuing functional limitations and the need for rehabilitation. Ordinarily, physiotherapy extending over several months would indicate that the patient continued to suffer disability, pain, restricted movement or weakness requiring therapeutic intervention. The duration of physiotherapy in the present case establishes that recovery was neither immediate nor complete.
30. The Commission further notes that the complainant underwent a fourth hospitalization during February 2023.The necessity for repeated hospitalization over a period of several months strongly supports the complainant’s case regarding the seriousness of the injuries suffered. The treatment records extending up to April 2023 clearly establish that the complainant continued to require medical supervision long after the initial occurrence.
31. Upon cumulative consideration of Volume–III, the Commission finds that the documents establish:
(a) prolonged treatment extending over several months;
(b) repeated hospital admissions;
(c) continued wound management procedures;
(d) persistent infection and systemic complications;
(e) prolonged physiotherapy and rehabilitation; (f) continuing disability and functional impairment;
(g) substantial expenditure incurred towards treatment.
32. Volume–IV primarily consists of medical literature, anatomical diagrams, photographs, disability records, business records, income records and financial documents. The first set of documents contained in Volume–IV relates to the accepted procedure governing intramuscular injections.
33. The complainant has produced diagrams showing the recommended angle for intramuscular injection, safe injection sites and anatomical structures situated in the gluteal region. These diagrams demonstrate that intramuscular injections are expected to be administered within recognized safe anatomical zones in order to avoid injury to important muscles, nerves and vascular structures. The complainant has also produced anatomical illustrations relating to the gluteal muscles, neurovascular structures and adjoining tissues.
34. While these documents do not independently establish negligence, they assist the Commission in understanding the possible mechanism by which an improperly administered injection may result in serious complications.
35. Volume–IV further contains photographs depicting the complainant before and after the occurrence. The photographs reveal the physical condition of the complainant during treatment and recovery. The wound photographs produced by the complainant visually demonstrate the severity of the infection and the extensive treatment undergone by him. Though photographs are corroborative in nature, they support the medical records contained in the earlier volumes.
36. One of the most important documents contained in Volume–IV is the Disability Certificate dated 15.02.2024.The Disability Certificate establishes that the complainant continued to suffer residual disability even long after completion of the acute phase of treatment. The existence of disability assumes considerable relevance while assessing the long-term consequences of the injuries suffered by the complainant.
37. The complainant has also produced GST Registration Certificates and vehicle registration records. These documents establish that the complainant was engaged in business activities and owned commercial vehicles prior to the occurrence. The GST returns and Income Tax Returns produced by the complainant further establish that he had a source of income and was actively carrying on business operations before the incident. The Commission finds that these documents are relevant in assessing the impact of the injuries upon the complainant’s earning capacity and livelihood.
38. Volume–IV also contains loan documents, bank statements, financial records and details relating to borrowings obtained by the complainant. The complainant relies upon these documents to demonstrate the financial burden imposed upon him by prolonged medical treatment. The records disclose that substantial borrowings and financial commitments became necessary during the course of treatment.
39. Upon cumulative consideration of Volume–IV, this Commission finds that the documents establish:
(a) accepted medical principles governing intramuscular injections;
(b) anatomical structures involved in gluteal injections;
(c) severity of the wound and treatment process;
(d) existence of continuing disability;
(e) business and earning capacity of the complainant prior to the incident;
(f) financial hardship arising from prolonged treatment;
(g) substantial expenditure incurred towards medical care.
40. The findings emerging from Volume–IV therefore substantially support the complainant’s claim regarding disability, financial hardship, loss of earning capacity and long-term consequences arising from the injuries suffered by him.
41. The cumulative effect of Volumes III and IV demonstrates that the injuries suffered by the complainant were neither temporary nor insignificant but had serious physical, functional and financial consequences extending well beyond the initial hospitalization.
42. The documents in Ex.A221 to Ex.A245 filed in volume V of the typed set reveals the medical expenses incurred by the complainant and the loans availed by the complainant to meet his treatment expenses. Ex.A245 is the photographs of the complainant during treatment.
43. The first opposite party has marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.Ex.B1 is the Registration Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council. The said document establishes that the first opposite party possesses registration as a Siddha Medical Practitioner.Ex.B2 is the BSMS Degree Certificate issued by Dr. M.G.R. Medical University. The said document establishes that the first opposite party possesses educational qualification in Siddha Medicine.Ex.B3 is a certificate relating to Alternative Medicine qualification. The document has been produced to demonstrate additional professional credentials possessed by the first opposite party.Ex.B4 consists of Government service records and transfer proceedings establishing that the first opposite party was serving in the Government Siddha Medical Department.
44. This Commission has carefully examined Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.There can be no dispute that the first opposite party is a qualified and registered Siddha Medical Practitioner. The said documents conclusively establish qualification and registration. However, the crucial issue in the present complaint is not whether the first opposite party possesses qualification but whether the treatment rendered to the complainant satisfied the standard of care expected from a reasonably competent medical practitioner.
45. Significantly, the first opposite party has not produced any contemporaneous treatment records relating to the complainant. No outpatient register, treatment register, injection register, clinical notes, patient history sheet or contemporaneous treatment records have been produced. The defence of the first opposite party rests primarily upon denial of administration of injection.
46. When extensive medical records generated by subsequent hospitals record a history of intramuscular injection and when no contemporaneous records are produced by the treating practitioner, such omission assumes considerable significance.
47. Therefore, while Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 establish qualification and registration, they do not effectively rebut the complainant’s allegations regarding the treatment rendered on
22.09.2022.
48. The third opposite party has marked Ex.B5 to Ex.B8.Ex.B5 consists of the complete Sri Hospital Case Sheet relating to the complainant.Ex.B6 consists of the surgery video.Ex.B7 consists of extracts from Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery.Ex.B8 consists of extracts from the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Surgery.
49. Among the documents produced by the third opposite party, Ex.B5 assumes considerable significance. The case sheet records admission of the complainant on
25.09.2022 with the diagnosis of:
(a) Right Gluteal Abscess;
(b) Gas Gangrene;
(c) Muscle Necrosis.
50. The patient history recorded in Ex.B5 specifically refers to intramuscular injection administered over the right gluteal region on 22.09.2022 followed by pain and swelling. The significance of this entry lies in the fact that it was recorded during the ordinary course of treatment and much prior to initiation of litigation. The CT findings recorded in the case sheet disclose diffuse air pockets involving gluteal muscles, subcutaneous tissues and surrounding structures. The records further establish that emergency incision, drainage and debridement procedures were undertaken.
51. The surgery video produced as Ex.B6 corroborates the defence that surgical treatment was in fact provided by the third opposite party.
52. Ex.B7 and Ex.B8 consist of extracts from standard surgical textbooks explaining the nature, progression and management of gas gangrene and severe soft tissue infection. The medical literature confirms that gas gangrene is a rapidly progressive and life-threatening infection requiring urgent surgical intervention. These documents support the contention of OP3 that the complainant was suffering from a serious infective process when he reached Sri Hospitals. At the same time, the case sheet itself supports the complainant’s version regarding the prior intramuscular injection and subsequent development of symptoms.
53. The counsel for the complainant argued that OP1 administered an intramuscular injection on 22.09.2022 without proper assessment and that severe pain commenced immediately thereafter. The counsel for complainant further contended that subsequent records from Sri Hospitals and Apollo Hospitals establish a continuous chain of causation linking the injection with the development of gluteal abscess, gas gangrene and muscle necrosis. The counsel further argued that OP2 and OP3 failed to provide timely diagnosis and adequate management of the rapidly progressing infection. The complainant relies heavily upon the contemporaneous hospital records, MRI reports, CT findings, laboratory reports, disability certificate and financial records.
54. The counsel for the first opposite party vehemently argued that no injection was administered. According to OP1, only oral medicines were prescribed and the complainant had allegedly taken treatment elsewhere before consulting OP1.OP1 further contended that the complainant failed to establish administration of injection by acceptable evidence. The Commission has carefully considered these submissions. However, the subsequent medical records generated during treatment consistently refer to a history of intramuscular injection. The Commission finds it difficult to accept the complete denial advanced by OP1 in the absence of contemporaneous treatment records supporting such denial.
55. The 2nd opposite party failed to appear and file the written version before this Commission even after receipt of summons from this Commission to refute the allegations of the complaint. Hence the 2nd opposite party was set ex-parte on
04.02.2026.
56. The counsel for third opposite party argued that the complainant approached Sri Hospitals only after the infection had substantially progressed. According to OP3, appropriate investigations, emergency surgery, antibiotics and supportive treatment were administered.OP3 further contended that the complainant sought treatment at a higher centre and therefore left Sri Hospitals.
57. The Commission accepts that OP3 undertook surgical intervention. However, the issue to be decided is not merely whether surgery was performed but whether the overall management satisfied the standard expected under the circumstances.
58. The complainant relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, State Consumer Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
59. The principles emerging from the cited authorities may be summarized as follows:
(i) Medical practitioners owe a duty of care to patients.
(ii) Deficiency in service by medical practitioners and hospitals is actionable under the Consumer Protection Act.
(iii) Possession of professional qualification does not by itself exclude liability for negligence.
(iv) Where documentary evidence establishes negligence and consequential injury, compensation may be awarded.
(v) Consumer Fora are empowered to grant compensation for medical negligence, disability, pain, suffering and mental agony.
60. The principles laid down in the cited decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case and support the complainant’s claim for relief.
61. Upon a cumulative consideration of Ex.A1 to Ex.A245 filed by the complainant, Ex.B1 to B8 filed by the opposite parties 1 and 3, Written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 and Medical literature and cited authorities, this Commission finds that the documentary evidence produced by the complainant is extensive, consistent and corroborative.
62. The complainant has established a continuous chain of medical records beginning from treatment under OP1, followed by treatment at K.K. Hospital, Sri Hospitals and Apollo Hospitals. The subsequent records consistently disclose development of gluteal abscess, gas gangrene, muscle necrosis, repeated hospitalization and prolonged rehabilitation.
63. The documentary evidence produced by OP1 establishes qualification and registration but does not satisfactorily explain the subsequent medical records.
64. The documents produced by OP3 establish the seriousness of the infection and also corroborate the history relied upon by the complainant.
65. This Commission has carefully considered the pleadings, oral evidence, documentary evidence, written submissions and legal authorities relied upon by the parties.
66. The complainant has produced extensive documentary evidence consisting of five volumes marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A245. These documents include prescriptions, hospital records, laboratory investigations, MRI reports, CT findings, discharge summaries, physiotherapy records, disability certificate, financial records and medical literature.
67. The first opposite party has produced Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 consisting of qualification certificates, registration records and Government service records.
68. The third opposite party has produced Ex.B5 to Ex.B8 consisting of the Sri Hospital case sheet, surgery video and medical literature.
69. The first and foremost circumstance which emerges from the evidence is that the complainant admittedly consulted the first opposite party on 22.09.2022. The prescription produced by the complainant and the defence raised by the first opposite party establish the factum of consultation.
70. The complainant’s case is that an intramuscular injection was administered in the right gluteal region and that severe pain commenced immediately thereafter. The first opposite party has completely denied administration of any injection.
71. The Commission has therefore examined whether the subsequent documentary evidence supports either of these rival versions. The records generated at third opposite party Hospitals assume substantial significance.
72. The patient history recorded at the earliest point of hospitalization specifically refers to intramuscular injection administered over the right gluteal region on 22.09.2022 followed by pain and swelling. The said entry was made during the ordinary course of treatment and there is no material before this Commission to suggest that the said entry was fabricated or manipulated.
73. The CT findings recorded in the Sri Hospital records disclose diffuse air pockets involving the gluteal muscles and surrounding structures. The diagnosis recorded includes Right Gluteal Abscess, Gas Gangrene and Muscle Necrosis.
74. The Commission finds that these records strongly corroborate the complainant’s version. The subsequent records of Apollo Hospitals provide further corroboration. The MRI reports, laboratory investigations, ultrasound findings, discharge summaries and treatment records establish that the complainant suffered from a severe infective process requiring prolonged hospitalization and repeated interventions. The records further establish that the complainant underwent repeated wound management procedures, prolonged rehabilitation and physiotherapy. The laboratory reports demonstrate systemic infection, inflammatory response, renal dysfunction and hepatic involvement. The medical records therefore establish not merely a localized injury but a serious medical condition affecting the complainant’s overall health.
75. The defence of OP1 consists primarily of denial. Though OP1 has established qualification and registration through Ex.B1 to Ex.B4, no contemporaneous treatment records relating to the complainant have been produced. No outpatient register, injection register, treatment notes or clinical records have been filed. In medical practice, maintenance of treatment records constitutes an important professional obligation. The absence of contemporaneous records supporting the defence permits the drawing of an adverse inference.
76. The Commission is therefore unable to accept the bare denial advanced by OP1 in preference to the contemporaneous hospital records produced by the complainant and recorded by subsequent treating institutions.
77. Coming to the role of OP2, it is seen that OP2 remained ex parte and failed to contest the proceedings even after receipt of summons from this commission. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate proper diagnosis, treatment or referral.
The allegations made against OP2 therefore remain unrebutted.
78. As regards OP3, the records show that the complainant was admitted at Sri Hospitals with a serious infective condition. Though OP3 undertook incision, drainage and debridement procedures, the complainant contends that there was delay in diagnosis and effective management. The Commission is conscious that gas gangrene is a rapidly progressive and potentially fatal infection. The records reveal that despite treatment, the complainant ultimately required transfer to Apollo Hospitals where prolonged treatment became necessary.
79. The totality of evidence demonstrates that the complainant underwent repeated hospitalization, repeated procedures and prolonged rehabilitation extending over several months. The disability certificate produced by the complainant establishes continuing disability. The photographs, physiotherapy records and subsequent treatment documents further corroborate the existence of long-term consequences.
80. The citations relied upon by the complainant reiterate the settled legal position that a medical practitioner is required to exercise reasonable skill and care and that failure to do so constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
81. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Commission finds that the complainant has successfully established deficiency in service as medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
82. The chain of documentary evidence commencing from treatment under OP1, followed by development of pain, swelling, gluteal abscess, gas gangrene, muscle necrosis, repeated hospitalization and disability stands proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The evidence produced by the complainant is consistent, corroborative and supported by contemporaneous medical records.
Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
ISSUE NO.2
1. Having answered Issue No.1 in favour of the complainant, the next question is whether the complainant is entitled to relief.
2. The evidence on record establishes that the complainant underwent prolonged hospitalization at multiple hospitals. The records further establish repeated surgeries, wound debridement procedures, physiotherapy and rehabilitation. The complainant has produced extensive medical bills, pharmacy bills, ambulance bills and insurance records demonstrating substantial expenditure. The disability certificate establishes continuing impairment. The GST records, Income Tax Returns and vehicle ownership documents establish that the complainant was engaged in business activities and possessed earning capacity prior to the occurrence. The financial records and loan documents establish that substantial borrowings became necessary during treatment.
3. The Commission is convinced that the complainant suffered Physical pain and suffering, Mental agony, Disability and loss of amenities, Financial hardship, Loss of earning capacity and Medical expenditure from material records.
4. This Commission therefore holds that the complainant is entitled to appropriate compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed
1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as compensation towards medical negligence committed by the opposite parties, delay and deficient diagnosis in treatment together with the medical expenses incurred by the complainant and for the physical hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
2. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly or severally directed to pay to the complainant litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only). The above order in para 1 and 2 has to be complied by the 1 to 3 opposite parties jointly or severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to claim the same with 9% interest per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated to Steno Typist, transcribed and typed by Him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 25th August 2025.

MEMBER.II MEMBER.I PRESIDENT

Complainant side witness:

P.W.1:Mr.M.Brammanand – (Complainant)

Complainant side documents:
Ex.A1 22.09.2022 Medical prescription issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A2 — Note on consultation paid and photograph of opposite party 1 clinic
Ex.A3 — Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical council document on doctor information for Dr.Saraswathi Dilliraj, Qualification BSMS,
Registration No.1755, System of medicines-Siddha
Ex.A4 09.09.2023 Request of Chief Medical Officer, Chennai, Port Trust on
Dr.Saraswathi Dilliraj
Ex.A5 18.03.2024 Details of Dr.Saraswathi Dilliraj issued by office of the director of public health and preventive medicines, T.S.Selvavinayagam
Ex.A6 26.07.2019 Treatment guidelines issued by Ministry of Ayush using Siddha
Principles
Ex.A7 — COVID 19 Vaccination Certificate of the Complainant
Ex.A8 24.09.2022 Medical prescription issued at KK Hospital
Ex.A9 — Photograph of KK Clinic, Korrukupet
Ex.A10 25.09.2022 Patient history of the Complainant issued by Dr Abdul (Stand by
Doctor) issued by Sri Hospital
Ex.A11 — Prescription; Finding and advise given by Dr. Vigneswaran to the
Complainant, Sri Hospital
Ex.A12 — Pamphlets of Sri Hospital Master Health Check up, Deformity
Correction, Foot Care
Ex.A13 — Photograph of Sri Hospitals
Ex.A14 25.09.2022 Pelvis scan for both the hips of the Complainant issued by the 3rd
Opposite Party

Ex.A15 25.09.2022 Partial lab report under Bill no 22009784, issued by the 3rd
Opposite Party
Ex.A16 25.09.2022 Partial lab report; Bill no 22009793, issued by the 3rd Opposite
Party
Ex.A17 25.09.2022 ECG report of the Complainant issued by the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A18 25.09.2022 Bill of supply under bill no: 220099793 issued by the 3rd Opposite
Party
Ex.A19 26.09.2022 Partial lab report: Lab No. 22/09/000544, issued by the 3rd Opposite Party

Ex.A20 26.09.2022 Cashless authorisation letter issued by Niva Bupa Health Insurance
Company Limited towards Sri Hospitals; Reference no. 526006-
986239
Ex.A21 26.09.2022 Discharge at request Summary issued by the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A22 26.09.2022 Reference letter given by Dr J Parthiban of Sri Hospitals to Dr
Kannan Prema, Consultant Plastic Surgeon
Ex.A23 27.09.2022 Partial & Final lab report; Lab no 22/09/000541, issued by the 3rd
Opposite Party
Ex.A24 — TNMC Registration Certificate of Opposite Party 3
Ex.A25 — Indian Medical Register of Opposite Party 3
Ex.A26 26.09.2022 Investigation findings by Dr Suresh Kumar MD FNB (Inf Dis) issued at Apollo Hospitals, Greams Road
Ex.A27 26.09.2022 Medical Prescription by Dr.Suresh Kumar MD FNB (Inf Dis) issued at Apollo Hospitals, Greams Road
Ex.A28 26.09.2022 Deposit Receipt to Apollo, Bill No. 39165265
Ex.A29 26.09.2022 UHID Registration of the Complainant
Ex.A30 26.09.2022 MRI Scan Pelvise report issued by the Apollo Hospitals to the
Complainant
Ex.A31 26.09.2022 ECG issued by the Apollo Hospitals

Ex.A32 26.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No: 12029623, issued by Apollo Hospitals
Ex.A33 26.09.2022 Surgi pack Ref No: 12029618, issued by Apollo Hospitals
Ex.A34 26.09.2022 Thyroid test report Ref no.12029624 issued by Apollo Hospitals;
Ref Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A35 27.09.2022 Fungus Culture test Report Ref No: 12030262; issued by Apollo
Hospitals; Ref Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A36 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No.12030374’ issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kannan Prema
Ex.A37 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12029618; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A38 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12031623; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A39 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12030374; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A40 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12032542; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A41 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12031031; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A42 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12033036; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A43 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12034553; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A44 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12030262; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A45 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12030267; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A46 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12030257; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A47 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12030374; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A48 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12034553; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema

Ex.A49 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12030374; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A50 27.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,AC01. H2223548; issued by Apollo
Hospitals: Ref Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A51 28.09.2022 Deposit to Apollo, bill no 39205474.
Ex.A52 28.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12035715; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A53 28.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12036576; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A54 28.09.2022 MRI Scan CT scan issued by Apollo Hospitals, bill no
CMHIP371908; Ref Dr.Kannan Prema
Ex.A55 29.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12041635; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A56 29.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12042117; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A57 29.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12043199; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A58 29.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12046046; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A59 30.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12046439; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A60 30.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12048867; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A61 30.09.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12050948; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A62 01.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12051809; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A63 01.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12056337; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A64 02.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12056977; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A65 03.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bill No.39276173

Ex.A66 03.10.2022 Ultrasound report: Bill no CMHIP371908; issued by Apollo
Hospitals, Ref Dr.Kannan Prema
Ex.A67 03.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12059446; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A68 04.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12065418; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A69 04.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12065419; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A70 05.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12070589; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A71 05.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12074691; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A72 05.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12074147; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A73 05.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12072544; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A74 05.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12074863; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A75 06.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12074863; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A76 06.10.2022 2D Echo with colour Doppler; Ref No,CMHIP371908; issued by
Apollo Hospitals; Ref Dr.Kannan Prema
Ex.A77 06.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12078956; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A78 06.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bills No.39534226
Ex.A79 07.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bill No.39339346
Ex.A80 07.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12080358; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A81 — Voluntary Retirement amount withdrawn for the purpose of medical expenses Rs.3,00,000/-
Ex.A82 08.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals,Bill No.39366273

Ex.A83 08.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bill No.39370749
Ex.A84 08.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12086973; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A85 08.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No,12079169; issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr.Kanan Prema
Ex.A86 08.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No: 12087806: issued by Apollo Hospitals: Ref
Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A87 09.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bill No: 39380056
Ex.A88 09.10.2022 Lab test report Ref No: 12092006; issued by Apollo Hospitals; Ref
Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A89 10.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bill No: 39396519
Ex.A90 10.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bill No: 39396705
Ex.A91 10.10.2022 No: 39396941 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bill No: 39396941
Ex.A92 10.10.2022 Lab test report under Ref No: 12094250; issued by Apollo
Hospitals: Ref Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A93 10.10.2022 Lab test report under Ref No: 12099408; issued by Apollo
Hospitals; Ref Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A94 10.10.2022 Lab test report under Ref No: 12099320; issued by Apollo
Hospitals; Ref Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A95 12.10.2022 Lab test report under Ref No: 12105458; issued by Apollo
Hospitals; Ref Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A96 13.10.2022 Lab test report under Ref No: Hospitals; Ref Dr Kannan Prema
12110818; issued by Apollo
Ex.A97 15.10.2022 Interim Summary issued by Apollo Hospitals Dr Kannan Prema
(First admission)
Ex.A98 17.10.2022 Deposit to Apollo Hospitals, Bill No 39529933
Ex.A99 17.10.2022 Lab test report under Ref No: 12030137; issued by Apollo
Hospitals; Ref Dr Kannan Prema

Ex.A100 17.10.2022 Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Hospitals Dr Kannan Prema
(First admission)
Ex.A101 17.10.2022 Apollo Pharmacy Bills (7 in Numbers)
Ex.A102 17.10.2022 Statement of Accounts of Mathiyazhan
Ex.A103 18.10.2022 Deposit receipt issued by Apollo Hospitals with Receipt
No.39543890
Ex.A104 18.10.2022 Ambulance service issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt No: CMh-
OCS-5844214
Ex.A105 18.10.2022 Deposit receipt issued by Apollo Hospitals with receipt no
39547443
Ex.A106 18.10.2022 Cashless authorisation letter and claim Claim settlement letter issued by Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited towards
Apollo Hospitals; Reference/Claim no. 526962
Ex.A107 19.10.2022 Pharmacy bills (5 in numbers)
Ex.A108 19.10.2022 Bill dated 19-Oct-22, issued by Apollo Hosiptals – Bill no: CMH-
ICR-119622
Ex.A109 20.10.2022
to
31.10.2022 Pharmacy Bills issued in the name of the complainant (7 in numbers)
Ex.A110 02.11.2022 Ambulance services bill issued by Apollo Hospitals under Receipt
No. CMH-OCS-5873885
Ex.A111 03.11.2022 Amount borrowed by Jayabharathi for the complainant’s medical expenses
Ex.A112 08.11.2022 Hospital Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no CMH-
OCS-5887115
Ex.A113 08.11.2022 Ambulance services bill issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-5887247
Ex.A114 09.11.2022 Ambulance services bill issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:

CMH-OCS-5889851
Ex.A115 09.11.2022 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-5889853
Ex.A116 09.11.2022 Prescription issued by Apollo Hospitals, by Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A117 09.11.2022 Lab services issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no: 12253061
Ex.A118 10.11.2022 Ambulance services issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no: CMH-
OCS-5892250
Ex.A119 11.11.2022 Treatment charges bill issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-5894456
Ex.A120 11.11.2022 Ambulance services issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no CMH-
OCS-5894476
Ex.A121 11.11.2022 Lab report done at Hitech Diagnostic Centre, Patient ID:
5700026214
Ex.A122 12.11.2022 Prescription issued by Apollo Hospitals, by Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A123 12.11.2022 Ambulance services issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no: CMH-
OCS-5896748
Ex.A124 12.11.2022 Treatment charges bill issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-5896745
Ex.A125 14.11.2022 Ambulance services issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no CMH-
OCS-5899803
Ex.A126 14.11.2022 Deposit receipt issued by Apollo Hospitals with receipt no
39996995
Ex.A127 14.11.2022 Treatment charges bill issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-5900157
Ex.A128 03.12.2022 Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Hospitals Dr Kannan Prema
Second admission)

Ex.A129 01.12.2022
to
05.12.2022 Apollo Pharmacy Bills
Ex.A130 05.12.2022 Discharge Bill issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no: CMH-ICR-
121663 (2nd Admission)
Ex.A131 06.12.2022 to
16.12.2022 Apollo Pharmacy Bills (22 in numbers)
Ex.A132 17.12.2022 Discharge summary issued by EMO (3rd Admission)
Ex.A133 18.12.2022 Discharge Summary issued by Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A134 26.12.2022 Bill of Supply issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no: CMH-ICR-
122678
Ex.A135 26.12.2022 Cashless approval by NIVA, Claim no 564481
Ex.A136 29.12.2022 Ambulance bill
Ex.A137 31.12.2022 Sanction letter for HouseMortgage
Ex.A138 05.01.2023 Out Patient Card
Ex.A139 05.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6013025
Ex.A140 06.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6015225
Ex.A141 07.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6017568
Ex.A142 09.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6019703
Ex.A143 10.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6022272

Ex.A144 11.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6024956
Ex.A145 12.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6027341
Ex.A146 13.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6029795
Ex.A147 14.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6031560
Ex.A148 16.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6034231
Ex.A149 17.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6036575
Ex.A150 17.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6038967
Ex.A151 19.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6041278
Ex.A152 20.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6043536
Ex.A153 20.01.2023 Out Patient Card
Ex.A154 21.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6045724
Ex.A155 23.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6048504
Ex.A156 24.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6051057
Ex.A157 25.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6053411

Ex.A158 26.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6055633
Ex.A159 27.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6057695
Ex.A160 28.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6059781
Ex.A161 30.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6062614
Ex.A162 31.01.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6065269
Ex.A163 07.02.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6079874
Ex.A164 18.02.2023 Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Hospitals
Ex.A165 18.02.2023 Discharge Bill issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
INT3465921(4th Admission)
Ex.A166 18.02.2023 Cashless approval by NIVA, Claim no 591714
Ex.A167 21.02.2023 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-6110261
Ex.A168 24.02.2023 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-6118376
Ex.A169 24.02.2023 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-6118007
Ex.A170 27.02.2023 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-6123962
Ex.A171 28.02.2023 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-159824
Ex.A172 06.03.2023 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no: CTO-

OCS-160062
Ex.A173 07.03.2023 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMHOCS-6142210
Ex.A174 08.03.2023 Treatment charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no: CTO-
OCS-160156
Ex.A175 15.03.2023 Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no: Treatment charges issued by CTO-
OCS-160448
Ex.A176 05.04.2023 Prescription for Psychotherapy
Ex.A177 06.04.2023 Out Patient Card
Ex.A178 06.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6214518
Ex.A179 10.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6222927
Ex.A180 11.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6225880
Ex.A181 13.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6231438
Ex.A182 17.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6238573
Ex.A183 18.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6241497
Ex.A184 19.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6243924
Ex.A185 25.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6257218
Ex.A186 26.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6259858

Ex.A187 27.04.2023 Physiotherapy Charges issued by Apollo Hospitals, Receipt no:
CMH-OCS-6262815
Ex.A188 — Diagram on angle of injections
Ex.A189 — Diagram on safe area for intra muscular injection
Ex.A190 — Photograph on upper outer quadrant
Ex.A191 — Diagram on human muscle
Ex.A192 — Diagram on Gluteus medius
Ex.A193 — Diagram on Gluteus maximus
Ex.A194 — Diagram on Superior Glutal
Ex.A195 — Diagram on Veins of Human
Ex.A196 — Diagram on Gluteus Medius
Ex.A197 — Diagram on Anatomy of Hip
Ex.A198 — Diagram on Gluteus Medius (Cut)
Ex.A199 — Diagram on Medial Compartments of muscle
Ex.A200 — Diagram on Spinous Process of T12
Ex.A201 — Photo of complainant when healthy and bed ridden in hospital
Ex.A202 — Photos of wound and treatment phase
Ex.A203 15.02.2024 Disability Certificate issued by Dr Kannan Prema
Ex.A204 04.08.2017 GST Registration Certificate
Ex.A205 — RC Book of Trucks (2 in Numbers)
Ex.A206 Jan-Dec
2018 GSTR-3B Form for year 2017-18; GSTIN-33BMFPB8719M2ZU
Ex.A207 AY 2016-
2017 Income Tax return filing dated 6 Jun 2017

Ex.A208 AY 2017-
2018 Income Tax return filing dated 26 April 2018
Ex.A209 AY 2018-
2019 Income Tax return filing dated 24 July 2018
Ex.A210 AY 2019-
2020 Income Tax return filing dated 25 July 2020
Ex.A211 –.10.2022 Loan taken from S.Latha
Ex.A212 17.10.2022 Loan taken from Jayasudha
Ex.A213 –.10.2022 Loan taken from Solai Saravana Raja
Ex.A214 — Loan taken from Jana Finance
Ex.A215 — Loan taken from Equitas Small Finance
Ex.A216 — ECS debit-Bajaj Finance Limited (7 in numbers)
Ex.A217 01-Nov-22 to 30-Apr-
23 Statement of Account – Parimala Devi
Ex.A218 — RBL Bank Credit Card Repayment statement (4 in numbers)
Ex.A219 — Gold Loan taken from Muthoot Money
Ex.A220 — Demand note from HDFC Bank
Ex.A221 — Consolidated Medical and Other Expenses
Ex.A222 28.10.2022 Medicine purchase Bill from Bala Pharmacy
Ex.A223 30.10.2022 Medicine purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A224 31.10.2022 Medicine purchase bill from Apollo pharmacy
Ex.A225 31.10.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Fruchem Surgicals
Ex.A226 31.10.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Epione Med Zone
Ex.A227 01.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A228 02.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A229 02.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A230 02.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A231 02.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Epione Med Zone
Ex.A232 02.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Fruchem Surgicals
Ex.A233 04.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Epione Med Zone
Ex.A234 08.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A235 09.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A236 10.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A237 12.11.2022 Medicine Purchase bill from Apollo Pharmacy
Ex.A238 15.11.2022 J Kesharam Choudhary (Pawn ticket)
Ex.A239 26.11.2022 Shanthi Lal Jain (Pawn ticket)
Ex.A240 18.12.2022 Sunil Kumar Jain (Pawn ticket)
Ex.A241 31.12.2022 Shriram finance sanction letter for mortgage loan
Ex.A242 06.06.2023 HDFC Bank account loan, flagging blacklisting of vehicle by advocate D Sathyaraj
Ex.A243 13.06.2023 Interest certificate from Shriram Finance
Ex.A244 — CSB Bank Passbook of Pramila Devi J(Loan given to complainant)
Ex.A245 — Photos of complainant during treatment

1stOpposite party side witness:

D.W.1:Dr.R.Saraswathi – 1st opposite party

1stOpposite party side documents:
Ex.B1 — Siddha Medical council registration
Ex.B2 — Degree awarded by Dr.MGR University
Ex.B3 — Degree warded in Alternative medicine
Ex.B4 03.05.2011 Government PHC, Parapakkam Vellore to Government IAC Peerkankaranai by Government order.

2nd Opposite party side witness: -Nil

Since, the 2nd opposite party set ex-parte on 24.02.2025

2nd Opposite party side documents: -Nil

Since, the 2nd opposite party set ex-parte on 24.02.2025

3rdOpposite party side documents:

D.W.2:Dr.J.Parthiban – The 3rd opposite party

3rdOpposite party side documents:
Ex.B5 — Copy of case sheet
Ex.B6 — Copy of surgery video
Ex.B7 — Copy of text book bailey & love’s short practice of surgery 28th edition
Ex.B8 — Copy of text book Oxford handbook of clinical surgery

MEMBER.II MEMBER.I PRESIDENT