Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 24th day of November , 2005
C.D.No.11/2005
O.Saraswathi, W/o O.Siva Prasad,
H.No.248/2, Sakuntalal Nilayam, Ramachandra Nagar, Near Shareen Nagar,
Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. Dr.K.Narasarama, M.D., D.M.,
Clinic-cum-Reidence. Gayathri Estate, Kurnool.
2. Viswa Bharathi Super Specialty Hospital,
Gayatri Estates, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on 21-11-2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri.C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties 1 and 2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per R. Ramachandra Reddy, Member)
CC.No.11/2005
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund to her Rs. 7,500/- being the amount expanded by her to the opposite parties together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the payment made till its realization, Rs. 20,000/- towards damages for mental agony Rs. 20,000/- for trying to declare her mentally unsound and trying to give electrical shock treatment which would have given adverse effect to her state of mind and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has studied up to intermediate in Alur and she is an educated un-employed and is trying for employment either in Government or Private Sector. As she was suffering on 07-01-2004 (Friday) with light fever from the morning, she took “crocin” tablet for the control of the said fever due to this light fever she was dull and weak from the afternoon. In the evening she took her dinner at about 7.30 P.M. a bit earlier because of light fever and weakness and after completing dinner, she was watching T.V. At that time her brother, mother and two children were present in the house. Suddenly at about 9.15 P.M. she suffered with fits. Her brother and mother informed about it to her husband and did first aid by keeping Iron keys in her hands, rubbing palms etc. Then she recovered and became conscious after first aid but was weak. In the mean time neighbors also came to her house. They advised, it is better to take her to Dr.Narasaram, M.D., D.M., of Gayatri Estates, Kurnool (opposite party No.1) as parents of a Nurse are residing near the house of her and they suffused the name of the said doctor. As it was 10’Clock in the night, as she suffered for the first time with fits, and as opposite party No.1 is having clinic in his own residence, her husband, brother and mother took her to opposite party No.1 in an Auto and reached the clinic-cum-residence of opposite party No.1. Some patients were there in opposite party No.1 Clinic. She waited till her turn, her brother. Mother and husband explained about the occurrence of first ever fit sustained by her. The opposite party No.1 enquired whether such fit occurred and her accompanists informed as “No”. The opposite party No.1 tested her with Stethoscope, examined the tongue of her and collected fees of Rs.150/- for checkup. The opposite party No.1 advised the accompanists of her to join her in Viswabharathi, Hospital, Kurnool (opposite party No.2) and wrote a slip to that effect which ought to be shown to the opposite party No.2 to seek admission and also advised some tests thereto for diagnosis. Accordingly she was shifted to opposite party No.2’s Hospital. The opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.1,000/- to be paid towards advance. Since her husband and other accompanists suddenly shifted her for treatment, they had no immediate money and paid Rs.500/- as advance for which receipt No.031 dated 07-01-2004 was issued by opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 against took Rs.50/- towards registration fee for which bill is not issued. She was allotted Bed No.5 in AMC Block then blood test done to her and Rs.50/- was collected for the test and no bill was issued to that effect. Again Rs.110/- was collected by the said opposite party No.2 for some tests and after payment from her side bill No.167, dated 07-01-2005 was issued by opposite party No.2. Then opposite party No.1 visited the Hospital and instructed her husband to get some tests done and also prescribed some medicines and also informed that Blood has to be donated to her the next day morning. An amount of Rs.800/- was expended by her husband for the medicines, testes etc., in the night itself. She made huge expenditure for tests and medicines for which no bills were issued by the opposite party No.2. The next day morning opposite party No.1 again visited the hospital and checked her and informed to once again advise some other tests for blood of her. An amount of Rs.560/- was collected in the morning for tests like blood test etc. At the time her mother was present and paid the amount. When her husband questioned why again amount is collected for blood test which was collected the previous day night by the opposite party No.2 then the opposite party No.2 refunded Rs.110/- and marked Rs.450/- as received vide receipt No.184 dated 8.1.2005. Some tests and diagnosis was conducted on her and all reported as normal. She was not subjected to proper care by the opposite party No.2 was very adamant in giving arrogant replies to shut the mouth, since they know what to do and how to administer. None of the staff were there to check the patient in the night. On 8.1.2005 in the night she was suffering from fever and the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.2 since no one was there to look after the patient (complainant) from opposite party No.2 side since their staffs were showing scant respect to her and her attendants. The fever was increasing hour by hour. The opposite party No.2 was requested by the family members of her to call the opposite party No.1, since the fever is increasing and since opposite party No.1 is the doctor who got she joined in the said hospital. But there was no response from the opposite party No.2 four to five times the attendants of her requested opposite party No.2 for proper treatment and need to call the doctor, the time was 11:30 P.M in the night, but the opposite party No.1 has not attended on the patient (complainant) and the opposite party No.2 has not taken care to call the doctor as the onus lies o opposite party No.2 to call the said doctor. The opposite parties behaved very negligently towards her and played with her taking advantage of innocence and exhibited very inferior service in the hour of need. The fever is increased to a high range and the mother of her requested the opposite party No.2 with folded hands to call the opposite party No.1, since condition of the patient (complainant) was deteriorating. In spite of it the opposite party No.2 was negligent and did not take steps to call opposite party No.1. There the attendants of her went to the house of opposite party No.1 and requested to visit by the replied that he will visit but has not visited. After half an hour the opposite party No.2 Nurse came and gave an injection to her but the opposite party No.1 has not visited her for treatment at the time of emergency. Though she was suffering from high fever and complained of necessity for emergency doctor treatment, she was not attended to by opposite party No.2 properly and opposite party No.1 has not visited, though he took amount for treatment. She suffered a lot with fever and other aliments throughout night and suffered mental agony due to poor and negligent treatment by opposite parties and further she was suffering from fever continuously the next day i.e., 09-05-2005 also. She was suffering from aliment due to high temperature and also with headache. The next day opposite party No.1 came to Hospital of opposite party No.2 and she and her attendants narrated how she suffered all the night and also prayed why the opposite party No.1 has not visited and why opposite party No.2 has not taken care of her. But the opposite party no.1 has not responded to it and prescribed medicines for mouth ulcers and as there was complaint from her towards headache, opposite party No.1 advised for C.T. Scan. Just for headache instead of prescribing medicine to relive her from it, the opposite party No.1 advised for C.T. Scan and X-ray, a costly diagnosis which was not affordable by her family for which he said an amount of Rs.2,100/- is required. She further submits that even though the previous day all the tests provide normal yet for complaining headache, the opposite parties have advised for costly tests taking advantage of inconvenience of the patients. Fearing what may happen if tests or not conducted her husband got her underwent C.T. Scan of brain and X-ray and incurred Rs.2,001/- by way of two bills dated 09-01-2005 and the said reports revealed that she is normal and thus without any necessity costly diagnosis were ordered for conduction on her body and she was unnecessarily forced to incur huge expenditure toward s medical tests. Also the opposite party No.2 was now and then since the dawn of 09-01-2005 prescribing injection to her. Many injections were given to her on 09-01-2005 and considerable amount was expended towards such injections (approximately 13. Injections were administered on her) though she was normal except with the pain in the mouth. Why so many injections were given is not known not informed by the opposite parties. In the afternoon on 09-01-2005 opposite party No.1 that her mouth ulcers were not allowing her to take food and she is feeling very hungry. But the opposite party No.1 was not caring to listen her and he was discussing with the Nurses of opposite party No.a2 began to discuss that she is suffering from Brain T.B she was once again asked the opposite parties that she is suffering from hungry due to inability for in – taking food, but the opposite parties are not giving proper response, but the opposite parties are not giving proper response, but trying to make out that she is suffering from Brain T.B. The Opposite party NO.1 was angry with her for the reason that she informed that mouth ulcers pain has not gone. The Opposite party No.1 instructed the nurses that with such question he came to conclusion that she is suffering from mental disease and illness and so she is talking and questioning for proper treatment and instructed the nurses of opposite party No.2 to tie the midst of all the family members of her and other patients in the hospital . She was feared with this behavior of the opposite parties and fearing that she will be unnecessarily and forcibly given electric shook and sedation ran out from the hospital and her husband went inside the hospital and by that time the opposite party No.1 went to Hyderabad on some urgent work. The said patient (complainant) then went to opposite party No.2 and cleared the balance b ill of Rs.570/- vide Sl.Nol.013 dated 09-01-2005 then the husband of her and her self again questioned why such deficient service is extended to her and why sedation and electric shock is ordered without any need and why blame of mental illness is made on her though she is normal mentally. But the opposite party NO.2 gave adamant reply and negligently behaved with her. The bill includes the physician charges to opposite party No.1 which are shown as Rs.600/- She and her husband returned to their residence with this sad and fateful incidence repenting for visiting opposite parties for medical help by which they have lost money unnecessarily, subjected to negligence and recklessness and carelessness by the by the opposite parties and for night mare experience and for being robbed off the limbs. Hence for the above said inferior and deficient service of the opposite parties have to be punished and hence she is seeking direction on the opposite parties to refund her Rs.7,500/- being the amount expended by her to the opposite parties together with interest at 24 percent P.A. from the date of payment made till its realization, Rs.20,000/- towards mentally agony, Rs. 20,000/- for trying to declare her mentally unsound and trying to give electric shock treatment which would have given adverse effect to her state of mind and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case.
3. In substantiation of the complaint averments, the complainant relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A11 besides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complainant averments and on the answers to the interrogatories served by her to the opposite party to the interrogatories of the complainant.
4. The opposite parties in pursuance of the notice served on them made appearance through their counsel and filed their written version and sworn affidavits denying the truth and bonafidies of the complaint averments and the maintainability of the complaint of the complaint on facts and law.
5. The opposite party No.1 and No.2 in their written version admitted that the complainant got admitted in the opposite party No.2 Hospital through opposite party No. 1 for the treatment of fits on 07-01-2005 at 11.55 P.M as per the opposite party NO.2 case sheet (Ex.B1). The brief history of the complainant/patient on 07-01-2005 at about 10 P.M . Then the complainant informed opposite party NO.1 that she threw a fit about half an hour ago for the first time in her life. During the fit she has bitten herself her tongue. As per family members version there was a history of fever and headache for previous two days and she took some tablets brought from medical shop. It was also informed that she developed vomiting on 07-01-2004, which contained blood . On clinical examination she was not answering properly as she was drowsy and sweating and not able to walk independently and collapsing to the ground. As the symptoms and signs suggest me of any underlying serious condition like cerebral malaria, brain fever evolving brain. TB and other brain infection, suggested them to get admitted immediately for detail evaluation and care to prevent further fits. She was admitted in Viswabharathi Hospital (Opposite Party No2) which is very near by his clinic and home for the convenience of frequent visits and also for the better facilities available there. Provisionally she was diagnosed as case of fever with acute symptomatic seizure with drug induced gastritis and he mat emesis. The same day she suggested some blood tests to detect cerebral malaria. As blood vomiting was present he ordered for blood hemoglobin estimation and blood grouping. He suggested possibility of blood transfusion to attendants, if hemoglobin was low or blood vomiting reoccur, which is an emergency. Treatment was given to prevent vomiting, to control fever, headache and fits. The same night, at about 1.00 A.M first opposite party again visited the hospital and saw the patient and found her stable and the next day morning i.e. Saturday 08-01-2005 at about 9.00 A.M first opposite party again visited the Hospital and saw the patient and found her stable and the next day morning i.e., Saturday 08-01-2005 at about 9.00 A.M. first opposite party again visited the hospital to see the patient and found her stable with light fever, and without further vomiting or fits. Treatment was continuing. Some other blood tests were suggested to detect the malaria, hepatitis and typhoid fever. In the afternoon sister informed opposite party No.1, the blood reports parameters all of which were reasonably within normal range. At about 9.00 P.M. same day, patient continues bearing light fever of 100 degrees for which fever controlling tablet was given. She also developed abnormal behavior in the form of cursing, shouting, restlessness and irritability. The same thing was informed to opposite party No.1 by nurse on phone and the suggested treatment for the same to the duty doctor and nurse. After some time the same light patients attendants visited clinic of first opposite party and explained the patient condition. AS he already know the stability of patient, he replied to the attendants the suggestions made to the nurse and assured them. He enquired once again on phone and ascertained the stability of patent, he did not go her as per personal attention was not required and the next day morning i.e. on 09-01-2005 Sunday, first opposite party again visited party again visited the patient and found having fever of 100 degrees but other vital parameters were stable. The patient was complaining headache, pain in mouth and difficulty in eating food, which are due to tongue bite, for which pain killers and mouth gel were prescribed and told attendants to offer soft and liquid diet. On examination she was restless and irritable and also found having stiff neck. Because of the presence of headache, persisting light fever, abnormal behavior and stiff neck the possibility of brain TB was reiterated and suggested the brain CT scan and chest X-ray to detect the TB if any. As the patient was restless, her fingers were tied to side railings of patient cot with bandage cloth in technical and non-harming way to avoid injuries to herself and for smooth flow of IV. fluids, which is a routine in delirious patients. She was planned for a EEG test which is a diagnostic test for fits and same thing was suggested to the patients attendants. But this test could not be done, as the test requires at most cooperation from the patient and as the patient was irritable. This was mistaken by the attendants for E.C.T., the electric shock treatment, which is given only by the psychiatrist and never by a neuro physician. In the afternoon after seeing the CT scan and X-ray reports, he suggested the L.P to draw the brain fluid for examination, which is confirmatory test for brain TB and kept all the materials ready. The patient and attendants were not willing for the test. But empirically treatment was stated for the same, because the delay in treatment can be of serious consequences complainant/ patient and the attendants also wanted to go to the government hospital, if they cannot offered the treatment in a private hospital. Since they expressed their willingness to go to government hospital, at about 3.00 P.M. Opposite party No.1 left to Hyderabad by Tungabhadra Express, on personal work on urgent personal grounds CT scan is mandatory in any case of fits with fever, restlessness to rule out the space-occupying lesion, before doing LP to draw the brain fluid. When he was going, at Gadwal in train, he received phone call from patient’s attendants and he answered politely, the need to rule out the brain TB and suggested to go to Government Hospital as desire by them. The next day morning at about 8.00 A.M. he again received the phone call from the patient’s attendants and he replied the same, and at each and every step proper care was taken and only necessary testes were done to establish the diagnosis and to give the treatment. The disease manifestations are also similar in may diseases in the early evolving stage. It has to be confirmed by proper tests and treated in time, for early and complete recovery and also the similar in may diseases in the early evolving stage. It has to be confirmed by proper tests and treated in time, for early and complete recovery and also to prevent complications and mortality. Opposite party No.1 usually make minimum two times and many a times thrice bed side rounds in hospitals and keep in touch on cell phone for any problem and visit the patient, if it is a major one like fits or any other serious condition. The said complainant / patient was admitted in Acute Medical Care Unit of opposite parties No.2. In the said unit contains twelve beds only. Two nurses are regularly posted at that unit throughout day and night. In the morning tow nurse by name Pushpa and Sunita were posted, in the afternoon another two nurses Saramma and Bharathi were posed. During night shanthi and Adilakshmi were posted. Besides those nurses, ward in charge by name Smt Leela Stays in the said ward from 8.00A.M. to 6.00P.M. One duty doctors made available in twenty four hours. Five juniors nurses are posted to assists the nurses regular. The in charge nurses treat the patients as per the instructions of the consultant doctor. Nurses keep the consultant informed the condition of the patient. The consultant visit s the patients twice usually and trice depending on the condition of the patient. He also attends the patients in case of any problem. The nurses reated the complainant/patient as per the instructions of the consultant. They responded properly, whenever they are called by the patient or her attendants. The allegation that they did not care th attendants and did not call consultant on the patients. At no time there was high fever. The maximum temperature recorded is 102 decrees on 08-01-2005 at 10.00 P.M. Gradually the temperature was controlled (Ex.B1). Further, the allegation that the complaint is made to spend his expenditure for tests and medicine and no bills were issued by the opposite party No.2 is incorrect. For each and every expenditure the bills were issued and the registration charges of Rs.50/- is noted on the case sheet. The tests conducted and medicines advised are most essential during the treatment of the patient of this nature. At no time school opposite party or its employees was adamant and he never used any harsh words like “Shut tho mouth”. It is incorrect to say that during night times the complainant was not seen by any nurses. All the required services were rendered by the nurses any duty doctor of second opposite party. For all expenditure bills except for Rs.50/- which is paid towards registration charges, which involves case sheet expenditure. The said payment is also endorsed on the front page of t case sheet. The allegation that no bill for Rs.50/- was given for doing blood test is incorrect with regard to the demand of Rs.560/- for carrying blood tests, the second opposite party submits that the total costs of blood tests was Rs.560/-. When it is brought to the notice of the employee of second opposite party about the payment of Rs.110/- during previous night, it was deducted and collected only Rs. 450/-. It is also incorrect to say that mother of the complainant requested second opposite party with folded hands to call first opposite party, since the condition of complainant was detroriating with high range fever. There was no such situation during her treatment. It is also incorrect to say that there was increase of temperature hour by hour on 08-01-2005 and that there was none to look after the patient and that demand of the complainant’s attendants to call the doctor was not accepted by the second opposite party is incorrect. The condition of the complainant was being informed to first opposite party and first opposite party was giving instructions to the nurses and those instructions were followed by the nurses of second opposite party and the allegation that opposite party advised costly tests, though all the tests done by that time proved normal is in correct. The injections given were noted in case sheet (Ex.B1). Not even a single injection was given unnecessarily. There is no attempt to rob the patient. Taking X-ray and CT Scan was unavoidable for treating the complainant. It is incorrect to say that first opposite party gave negligent answers. Further the opposite party in its regular course maintained case sheet. It evidences, condition of patient, treatment ect (ExB1)
6. Hence, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant/ patient, and the said complainant is frivolous and vexatious and it is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
7. In substantiation of the written version averments the opposite parties relied upon the documentary record in Ex.B1 besides their sworn affidavit in reiteration of their written version averments and on the answers to the interrogatories served by the complainant and the third party affidavit and his answers to the said interrogatories of the complainant and the Davidson’s principles and practice of medicine 19th edition and Harrison’s principles of internal medicine, 15th edition, volume 2 in reference to page No.2361.
8. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out alleged deficiency of service of the opposite parties and her entitleness to the claim made.
9. The Ex.A1 is an original cash receipt No. 031 dated 07.01.2004 of opposite party No.2 for Rs.500/- issued towards advanced in the name of the complainant and the name of the complainant and the name of the reference doctor i.e. opposite party No.1. The Ex.A2 is an original cash receipt No.167 dated 07-01-2005 of opposite party No.2 for Rs.110/- issued towards blood U/s HB, TC,DC, ESR and Blood group in the name of the complainant. The Ex.A3 is also an original cash receipt No.184 dated 08-01-2005 issued by opposite party No.2 for Rs.450/- towards LFT, M.P in the name of the complainant. The Ex.A4 are medicine bills, 12 in number. The Ex.A5 in an original receipt No.013 dated 09-01-2005 issued by the opposite party No.2 for Rs.570/- in the name of the complainant with particulars of date of admission i.e. 07-01-2005 and discharge of date i.e. 09-01-2005 two days room charges Rs.400/- (Rs.200x2),k physician charges Rs.600/- (OP NO.1) PCB charges Rs.20/- and Rs.50/- miscellanies charges, total amounts to Rs.l070/- less advance Rs.500/- and collected Rs.570/- as mentioned above. The Ex.A6 is an original cash receipt No.2027 dated 09-01-2005 issued by Santhiniketan Diagnostic Centre Private Ltd for Rs.1100/- (Rs.1000/-+ Rs.100/- in the name of the complainant towards C.T. Brain scan and X-ray these tests has undertaken by the instance of opposite party No.1. The Ex.kA7 is an original cash receipt No.6643 for Rs.1,000/- in the name of the complainant towards C.T. Brain scan which was also under taken by the instance of opposite party No.1. The Ex.A8 is a report about C.T brain plain and contrast study of the complainant issued by a Radiologist of Santhiniketan Diagnostic Centre Private Ltd dated 06-01-2005. The Ex.A9 is a report about C.X.R-PA of the complainant issued by a Radiologist of the above said Diagnostic Centre dated 09-01-2005. The impression about the jboth reports (Ex A8 and A9) by the said Radiologists revealed as NORMAL STUDY. The Ex.A10 is a report dated 08-01-2005 of opposite party No.2 about the blood on various factors and the Ex.A.11 is a report dated 08-01-2005 of opposite party No.2 about the malaria fever and the particulars of liver functions test. The complainants sworn affidavit also re-iterates all the above facts and the documents.
10. The opposite parties relied on the documentary proof and it is marked as Ex.B1. The Ex.B1 is the case sheet of the complainant maintained by the opposite party No.2 on the admission of the complainant at the instance of opposite party No.1 wherein the said opposite party No.1 informed opposite party No.2 to admit the complainant in AMC ward for fits and suggested the opposite party No.2’s hospital staff required treatment for the said patient/complainant and further suggested to inform him if further fits occur. The said slip of opposite party No.1 is also pained to the case sheet along with Ex.A.10 and A.11 of opposite party No.2’s case sheet (Ex.B1) on the top of the Ex.B1 it is noted as registration fee Rs.50/- paid and entered. The opposite party NO.2 at case notes mentioned the name of the complainant with address, age(27 years), registered No.(8399-05). Date of admission as 07-05-2005 with time (11.55P.M) and date of discharge as 09-01-2005 with time (3P.M), The name of the consulting doctor (O.P No.1). Advance as Rs.500/- and ward as AMC are also noted. The case notes reveals that it is the case of ‘SEIZURE’ (fits) appeared with vomiting at 8.30 P.M with fever since 3 days and in further pages of case sheet (Ex B.1). The doctor’s advice (O.P No.1) and the treatment by the opposite party No.2’s hospital staff and also maintained in it the drug administered chart from 07-01-2005 to 09-01-2005 and critical care page about intake of I.V fluids mentioned. Further at separate page i.e. clinical record/Lab services, the temperature of the complainant/patient on 08-01-2005 at 10.A.M 101 decrees F, at 2P.M 99 decrees F, at 6 P.M 99 decrees F, at 10 P.M 102 decrees F and on 09-01-2005 at 10 A.M 99 decrees F. Nursing care and Assessment Sheet of the complainant/ patient also maintained in the said Ex.B1. The opposite parties in support of their case also filed literature about the disease (Seizure/fits) of the complainant /patient which was discussed in HARRISONS (15th addition) Principles of internal medicine volume 2 (page No.2361) along with DAVIDSON’S Principles and Practice of Medicine, 19th addition. In the above said Harrison’s principles of internal medicine in the chart at page 2361, wherein it is clearly mentioned how to treat the adult patient with seizure (fits) by conducting the laboratory studies such as (1) CBC, Electrolytes, Calcium, Magnesium Serum glucose, liver and renal function tests, Urinalysis, Toxicology screen. (2) Positive metabolic screen or symptoms/ Signs suggesting a metabolic or infectious disorder (3) Further work-up Lumbar puncture, cultures, Endocrine studies, CT MRI if focal features present. Accordingly the complainant/patient was treated. With this evidence the complainant’s allegation at para 7 and 8 of her complaint is baseless as she has not made any endeavour to place expert opinion with his affidavit or by examination of expert doctor or medical literature in support of her allegations in the evidence adduced in the exhibits A1 to A11 and exhibit B1 of opposite parties, in the absence of any such cogent material it is very difficult to come to conclusion that there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. This fact was discussed in CHARAN SINGH Vs Heading touch Hospital and others. III (203) CPJ 62 (NC) wherein the onus of proof of negligence was always upon the complainant. This fact was also discussed in (1) smt Rekha Gupta Vs Bombay Hospitals Trust and another decided on 19-03-2002. II(2003) CPJ 90 (NC) (2) SK.Sharma Vs Dr Prapul l
B. Desai, decided on 27-11-2002 II (2003) CPJ 90 (NC)(3) P.Venkatalakshmi Vs Dr Y.Savitha Devi decided on 23-05-2003 II(2004) CPJ 14 (NC) respectively. Further, for another serious ;allegation by the complainant on the opposite parties when she asked that her mouth ulcers (which are due to tongue bite at the time of fits, for which pain killers and mouth Gel were prescribed and asked the attendants to offer soft and liquid diet. This is as per the sworn affidavit at para 4 of the opposite party No.1 were not allowing her to take food and she is feeling very hungry, but the opposite party No.1 was not caring to listen her and he was discussing with nurses of opposite party No.2 and come to conclusion that she was suffering from “Brain T.B “ and the opposite party No.1 was angry with her for the reason that she informed about the mouth ulcers pain has not gone and questioned about the treatment of her properly as to this, the opposite party No.1 instructed the nurses that with such questioning he (opposite party No.1) come to conclusion that she his suffering form mental disease and instructed the nurses of opposite party No.2 to tie the hands of her and to give sedation and electric shock. As to this allegation of the complainant the opposite parties filed third party affidavit of B.Mallikarjundu S/o. Ramudu, who is the son, who his looking aftger his father who was also one among the patients at AMC, at bed No.4 of opposite party NO.2’s hospital. The complainant/ patient was also at Bed No.5 at AMC of opposite party No.2 at the time of the said alleged instance. The said third party affidavit and his answers to the interrogatories of the complainant reveals that the whole said allegations was falls and the treatment and service of opposite party NO.2’s hospital staff in the said hospital was good, as it is evident where his father was admitted on 04-01-2005 at Coma stage due to Paralysis, on the advise of opposite party No.1 in the said ward of opposite party No.2’s hospital (AMC, Bed No.4) and his father regain consciousness within week after the treatment by the opposite party No.1 in the said hospital and his father was discharged on 12-01-2005. During the said treatment the doctors and nurses rendered their services very well. This evidence of the opposite parties for the said allegation of the complainant was not rebutted in any manner what so ever by the complainant by adducing any evidence worthy to appreciate by this Forum.
11. As absolutely there is no cogent material on the record in support of the contentions of the complaint except filing the medical bills and reports on her behalf (Ex. A1 to A11). Hence in the circumstances discussed above there appears on error or unfair trade practice or no defect or no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in treating the complainant for the said suffered disease for which she admitted in their medical care.
12. Therefore, in conclusion of the above discussion as the case of the complainant is suffering for want of proper cause of action, the complainant, cannot have any remedy she sought for from the opposite parties.
13. Consequently, there being no merits and force in the case of the complainant, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 equally i.e Rs.1,000/-each under section 26 of the CP Act, from the complainant for the vexatious claim made. The costs awarded to the opposite parties is to be complied by the complainant within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 24th day of November, 2005
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant -Nil- For the opposite parties-Nil-
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant :-
Ex A.1 Cash Receipt of Viswabarathi Super Speciality Hospital, Kurnool Dt.07-01-2004 of Rs.500/-.
Ex.A2 Cash Receipt , Dt.07-01-2005 of Rs.110/-
Ex.A3 Cash Receipt , Dt.08-01-2005 of Rs.450/-.
Ex.A4 Medical bills and prescriptions 1 to 12.
Ex.A5 Receipt of Viswabarathi Super Speciality Hospital, Kurnool of Rs.570/-
Ex.A6 Cash Receipt, of Shanthi Nikethan Dliagnostic Centre (P) Ltd., Kurnool Dt.09-01-2005 of Rs.1100/-.
Ex.A7 Cash Receipt, Dt.09-01-2005 of Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A8 CT Brain Plain & Contrast study (Shanthi nikethan Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd) Dt .09-01- 2005.
Ex.A9 CXR –PA , Dt.09-01-2005.
Ex.A10 Report of Viswabarathi Super Specialty Hospital, Kurnool
Dt.08-01-2005.
Ex.A11 Report of Viswabarathi Super Specialty Hospital, Kurnool Dt.08-01-2005. (Liver Function Test)
List of Exhibits marked for the Opposite parties :-
Ex.B1 Case sheet of the complainant maintained by the
opposite party No.2.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri C. Jogarao,Advocate, Kurnool .
2. Sri A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
