Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/97/2016

1. Sanagala Sudhakar, son of Balakrishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Dr. D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, M.D. Consultant,Krishna Institue of medical Sciences Limited,(KIMS) - Opp.Party(s)

Gummadi Stalin Babu

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :17-10-2016

                                                                             Date of Disposal:15-11-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the  15^th day of   NOVEMBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.97/2016

 

1.	Sanagala Sudhakar, H/o.Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma, Son of Balakrishna, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Driver,
2.	Sanagala Saranya, D/o.Sanagala Sudhakar, D/o.Sanagala VEnkata Ramanamma, Unmarried, Aged 20 years, Hindu,   Both are residents of   Ramachandra Puram, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District.                                                         ..… Complainants

Vs.

 

1.	Dr.D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, M.D. Consultant, (Physician & Dialectologist in Krishna Institute of          Medical Sciences Limited (KIMS), Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited (KIMS), Durgamitte, Nellore-524 003. Email:assistance@kimshospitals.com
2.	The Chairman, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited (KIMS), Head Office, 1-8-31/1, Minister Road, Krishna Nagar Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, Telangana-500003, E mail:assistance@kimshospitals.com                              ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .

          This complaint is coming before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Gummadi Stalin Babu and Sri Somarajupalli Nageswara Rao, advocates for the complainant and Sri O. Abbai Reddy and Sri M. Brahmam,   advocates for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum passed the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

         The complaint filed by this complainant under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for loss of consortium an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, mental agony due to sufferance  and loss of  earning family member to the complainant No.1 and unmarried daughter for Rs.4,50,000/-, Lab & Drug  (Medicines) Expenses at opposite party No.1 hospital for Rs.62,609/-, medical expenses at Vijaya Hospital at Chennai for Rs.3,45,000/-, conveyance charges at opposite party No.1 hospital for Rs.25,000/- and  Vijaya Hospital at Chennai for Rs.25,000/-, all expenses  amounting to Rs.16,07,609/- and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

          The complainants submitted that complaint filed under Section-2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act for the “Medical Negligence”, Misdiagnosis and “deficiency of service” of the opposite parties  which resulted in Death of  Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma  and severe Loss of  Consortium, Mental   health to complainants due to failure to exercise reasonable medical skills  and care in diagnosis and treatment as per the prevalent standards with that particular point  of time by the opposite parties.

         2.    The brief averments of  the complaint are as follows that:-the complainants submitted that complainants  are survivors of deceased  Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma and complainant No.1 was worked  as Private Car Driver (He lost his job prior to the death of his wife) and he having one daughter by name Saranya who completed  her education and her parents   are wanted to perform  marriage alliances.  The deceased Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma was hale and healthy prior to the date of her death on account of failure to diagnosis and medical negligence of the opposite party No.1.

            The complainants submitted that the deceased Sanagala                                                Venkata Ramanamma approached  1^st opposite party hospital along with  complainant No.1 at about 9.15 p.m., on 06-02-2015 with a problem of mild head ache, fever, loose  motions and vomiting.  The 1^st opposite party prescribed pathological tests at their hospital and  admitted her in their hospital   for  treatment.  The opposite party hospital prescribed high dose  and high powered antibiotics to the patient and  conducted experimental treatment on her without diagnosing actual problem of patient.  Despite taking these medicines, the deceased was not getting any relief.  Opposite party No.1 treated deceased patient for a period of 5 days (from at about 9.15 p.m. on 06-02-2015  to at about 11.26 p.m.   on 10-02-2015) with irregular and negligent treatment.  On account of negligent treatment, her condition was deteriorated day by day and finally on the forced request of the complainant No.1,  to the opposite party No.1, at about 11.26  p.m. on 10-02-2015, opposite party No.1, referred patient for better treatment at hospital at Chennai.

              The complainants submitted that  immediately complainant shifted his wife  to Vijaya Hospital, Vadapalani, Chennai in early hours at about  3.49 a.m. on                 11-02-2015 and there the doctors diagnosed with proven microbiological  tests and she had treated with  appropriate medications for a period of 8 days  but due to ‘several complications’ on account of bad and negligent treatment and misdiagnosis of opposite party No.1,  she fought for life in ICU for a period   of 8 days and finally lost her life at about 10.51 p.m.  on 18-02-2015.

           The complainants submitted that  with the medical experts opinion, complainant came to know that opposite party No.1  conducted more   experiments on the deceased patient and caused the  deterioration of her health condition without diagnosing her problem and also excess use of antibiotics.  It shows medical negligence on the part of opposite parties.  Repeated use of antibiotics    on deceased patient without diagnosis, led to the emergence of drug-resistant germs and 1^st opposite parties  treatment is comes under medical negligence.

Failure to Diagnise:

            The complainants submitted that Misdiagnosis of opposite party No.1 is responsible for death of Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma.  Opposite party No.1 physician fails to identify the underlying medical condition of the patient.  He over  look valuable diagnostic tests and lost critical time to treat  the patient properly, leading to the  patient’s unnecessary and untimely death.

1.       Opposite Party No.1 failure to diagnose cause of health  condition of deceased patient especially as the  required facility to diagnose the cause of the complication was not available in the opposite party No.1 hospital and reference to a higher centre  was delayed with that particular point of time, resulted loss of life.

           Opposite Party No.1 violated  3.6 Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002, Patients Referred to Specialists.

2.        Deceased patient ought to have been referred to a higher centre immediately detecting the complications  rather than waiting for 5 days without realizing   the nature of the sickness of deceased patient.

3.         Opposite Party No.1 not having such reasonable medical skills, expertise, ability and due care to found decreasing  Platelet Counts, Severe fever and it’s severity in time.

            The complainants submitted that the Medical Prescriptions issued by the opposite party No.1 hospital is irregular and against the 1.4 of Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002.  The medical prescription  not disclosing Generic name of the Medicine, name of the Doctor, Registration Number of Doctor accorded   from State Medical Council /  Medical Council of India and it is absent and it is irrational prescription.

            The complainants submitted that  it is pathetic that  on account of acts of opposite  parties, complainants No.1 lost  his wife and care taker mother of complainant No.2 and more over they lost bread winner as the deceased was Anganwadi worker.  If proper medical services would have been offered by opposite parties, mother of  complainant could have lived the healthy life thereafter.

           The complainants submitted that complainants sent legal notices                          dated 06-09-2016 through  email, email:assistance@kimshospitals.com  to the opposite parties 1 and 2  and later sent legal notices dated 06-09-2016  through registered post (postal receipts No’s RN654635520IN & RN654635516IN respectively) and opposite parties No.1 and 2  received the  same on 09-09-2016 and 12-09-2016 respectively but not  responded and at least not sent any explanation on their part of medical negligence.  This attitude of  opposite party No.1 and 2 strongly proves their part of deficiency of service.

           The complainants submitted that  in the  case of Dr.Laxman  Balkrishna Joshi Vs. Dr. Trimbark Babu Godbole and another reported in AIR 1969 SC 128 a and  A.S.B. Mittal  Vs.  State of U.P. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1570, it was laid down that when a doctor is consulted by a patient, the doctor owes to his patient certain duties which are:

1.    duty  of care in deciding whether  to undertake the case,
2.    duty  of care in deciding what treatment to give, and
3.    duty of  care in the administration of that treatment.

 

A breach of  any of the above duties may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may on that basis recover damages from his doctor.

           In the afore mentioned case,  the apex court interalia observed that negligence has many manifestations – it may be active negligence, collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurrent   negligence, continued negligence,  criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence  active and passive negligence, willful or reckless negligence,  or  negligence per se.

           The complainants submitted that in this case, the opposite party No.1 established  continued negligence for a period  of 5 days   by prescribing High  Powered Antibiotics   without diagnosis.  At the same time both the opposite parties shown willful / reckless negligence for the notice dated 06-09-2016 sent by the complainant.  It  amounts to admission of reckless  negligence  on the part of opposite parties and  submits to allow the complaint with costs.

           3.      The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version with the following averments that: the opposite parties submitted  that one patient by name Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma, female,  aged 40 years, known diabetic for the last 5 years, is admitted in CCU Step down care on 06-02-2015  with the complaint of 5 days fever, 3 days breathing difficulty and 2 days vomiting.  As the  said patient was provisionally diagnosed as PUO  with  sepsis  and  Metabolic  Acidosis, old diabetes, 1^st opposite party has started antibiotics and other supportive after sending for all the important investigations  to know  the internal condition and functional status   of the organs, in the critical care wards.  As per sepsis guidelines, antibiotics should be given within an hour of case presentation.  Usually, in endemic  areas, diagnosis of Dengue, scrub Typhus, Leptospria, Brucella etc., is generally made on clinical grounds alone.  Usually blood  cultures will be negative.

            The opposite parties submitted  that  in view  of familiar clinical  picture and less predictive value of available costly   investigations with no extra benefit, usually  the doctors do not  investigate extensively, to start with.  The 1^st opposite party  with his experience and knowledge of various possible prevalent   infections in his locality, he suspect the possible  priorities and treat the fevers like Dengue, Scrub typhus,  Lepto, Brucella etc.,  without much investigations.  The 1^st opposite party states that final confirmation of the cause of  fever is not a simple issue.  Any doctor can diagnose and  confirm the heart attack within 5 minutes taking  an ECG  and  can confirm  brain stoke  within  10 minute by taking brain scan, but patient can present with fever from infective focus anywhere in the body and even cancers most of the times present  with fever only.  There are some  patients in whom the cause of fever cannot be found even with extensive work-up.

             The opposite parties submitted  that according to any standard medicine text books, there are various causes of fever   and also for each fever, there will be different   types of tests.  The choice of laboratory test is not straight  forward and all currently available tests have their own limitations.  For example, the routine weil-Felix test   being done every where for scrub Typhus  fever, the diagnosis is notoriously unreliable.  Its sensitivity is as  low as 33% and specificity is  only 46%.  In patients from endemic areas, like locality here,  18% of health individuals  have positive test reports.  Even with  Igm EIISA Test also, specificity  is only 85%  Cross reactivity is high among infections like dengue, scrub Typhus,  Lepto, Brucella and other rickettisial infections.  For confirmation, the doctors have to exclude  all these infections ;by doing specific Igm Tests.  Like this the doctors can go on  discussing  process of each and every test.

           The opposite parties submitted  that hospitals  are now a days investing and spending crores  of rupees for costly equipment  like MRI, CT Scan, Cath-Lab,                  3 D ultrasound scans, sophisticated CCU  and ICCU set ups.  Making available a Microbiological test is not at all  a big tissue.  But, the fact is, if  the doctors keep available   any specific test kit, it will have limited expiry period of one year only and they should choose suspicious patients for testing, irrespective of their economical capability,  to avoid financial loss to the institution by using the targeted procedures within the specified life period of  one year time.  For patients, now a days, for a common disease like fever, the doctors cannot make it quite costly by following the disease protocols, compulsory.

            The opposite parties submitted  that  by having the familiarity of all these reasons and investigatory protocols and procedures, having the right of  ordering any investigation, by knowing the future implications and remote possibility of legal responsibility, with an humanitarian.    Outlook towards the economical status  and financial resources   of Anganwadi worker / patient , 1^st opposite party has suggested the minimum, necessary important laboratory investigations.  The     1^st opposite party do not order for any extra investigations simply for the sake of income to the 2^nd opposite party institution  or for his personal benefit unless and otherwise,  the condition of the patient warrants.

           The opposite parties submitted  that though 1^st opposite party has been working in the institution since quite a long period till today, his hospital management  have never suggested or forced to do extra investigations, with a generous attitude and future vision to assure social justice to the people of society.   In  western countries,  with lot of economical resources and insurances support, they will do all protocol investigations even for mild illness.  But society here cannot afford such types of costly approach.

            The opposite parties submitted  that  among all these endemic diseases, scrub Typhus is usually having the most fulminant course of disease.  For that 1^st opposite party  has given Azithromycin injection according to the dosage schedule given in the standard medical test books.  Azithromycin is the best alternative drug for  conventional doxycycline, which he cannot give to the said patient, because of her Gastro intestinal   complications.  Regarding Dengue  fever management, even after confirmation by doing specific   tests, there is no extra benefit as there is no  extra benefit  as there is no specific medicine and treatment as 1^st opposite party already giving required best supportive care.  The 1^st opposite party has  received and treated the said patient already complicated case for a short period of 4 full days with the best of his efforts  to save the  patient.  The 1^st opposite party’s  hospital team are having lot of  experience and exposure to treat such type of patients and even more critical sepsis patients with multiple organ failure like having damage of liver, kidney, lungs, heart with best recovery and high success rates.  According to existing sepsis guide lines, even with the best possible treatment like in western countries, mortality rate in sepsis patents is 10%.  Any qualified specialist doctor by knowing all these medical facts, after treating a patient in  tertiary care center     for a good number of  days, cannot through away the failure  or success on some others.  Cause of death of the patient always  should not be projected a  the failure of the treating doctor, the diagnosis and the treatment.  Inspite of  1^st opposite party’s sincere efforts, sometimes, some patients may not respond properly on the expected and planned lines of given treatment and  supportive care, when the course of the disease is fulminant and also in the  presence of low   immune statues due to predisposing chronic diseases like diabetes, Thyroid illnesses and other organ dysfunctions and also may be because of poor nutritional status.  It is appropriate to suggest all the patients who are admitted in the hospital with fevers to go to Chennai, Vijaya and Appollo Hospitals straight away from the beginning?  Even in the best  health care facility  centers like in America and UK  also they are having step care approach and they will take the decision of referring the patients to which grade of  hospital, depending upon the insurance  premium amount paid.

             The opposite parties submitted  that  throughout  her hospital stay, the said patient’s condition was explained to her attendants and complainants,  in their own language  regarding the seriousness and prognosis of the   disease on regular basis.  The 1^st opposite party being a responsible doctor and working for  the best interest of the patients, he has given all the necessary supportive care with his best efforts.  As alleged in the complainant’s notice, 1^st opposite party has neither  prescribed    high powered antibiotics nor conducted any experimental  treatment, without diagnosing the condition of the patient.  Depending upon the condition of the patient only, 1^st opposite party has prescribed necessary antibiotics and supportive drugs  and   there is no need  for any experimentation on the said patient as he is a  senior, qualified  physician and practicing medicine over nearly two decades of time and quite a good  number of such P.U.O.  cases were treated by him  in his hospital and saved the patients.  The question of medical negligence never  takes place in a tertiary and  level hospital like the  1^st opposite party and depending upon the prognosis and response of the patient  to the treatment, he order for different  investigations and he won’t  order for unnecessary and unwanted investigations which will be financial burden  to the patient and also undesirable.  In the complainant’s notice, alleging  that 1^st opposite party’s  hospital does not have the required facilities to diagnose the diseases is quite  baseless and presumptive as his hospital is one of the best corporate  hospitals in this region rendering medical aid to the needy patients from various nearby  districts with all latest and sophisticated costly equipment, for the last 16 years.

            The opposite parties submitted  that  the sad patient’s attendants wanted to shift her  to Chennai and as per their wish and will, the patient has been discharged at their own request and risk  i.e., discharged against  medical advice.   The very fact that the  patient could pull on for 8 days at Chennai infers that the so called better  treatment  at Chennai could not yield expected results and the patient could not be saved and thus there is no violation of 3.6 code of ethics regulations, as the patient was discharged against the medical advice inspite of   1^st opposite party’s repeated periodical counseling’s  and appraisals about the condition of the patient and the prognosis.

            The opposite parties submitted  that as a matter of fact, to diagnose a P.U.O.  case and to render treatment is quite challenging as it may take any turn and  land in any  condition and may even lead to Multi organ disease and multi organ failure  and   death, inspite of doctors best efforts with the  hop of a ventilator and all sophisticated investigations, which has  happened in this patient, inspite of    expert services at Chennai   for over a period of 8 days and the patient could not be revived and 1^st opposite party cannot blame their efforts.  In view of all the facts submitted supra, 1^st opposite party says that there  are  no lapses or willful negligence or whatsoever  on his part or on the part of his institution in this particular  case and the question of compensation does not  arise.  The complainants sent the notice and filed this complaint to exerting pressure on the opposite parties to get wrongful gain only from them and hence submits to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.      On behalf of complainants, the affidavit  of P.W.1  filed  and Exs.A1 to A12 marked.

          5.       On behalf of the opposite parties, the affidavit of  R.W.1 filed   and no documents  were filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

         6.       On behalf of the both parties, written  arguments were not filed.

         7.       Arguments on behalf of the complainants heard.

         8.       Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to submit their  side of arguments.  Hence, it is treated that arguments  on behalf of  the opposite parties 1 and 2 treated as heard.

         9.       Now the points for consideration are:

          (1)     Whether the complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite

                   parties 1 and 2 under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

                   alleging the deficiency of service by the opposite parties  1 and 2  is

                   maintainable?

         (2)      To what  relief, the complainants are entitled?

         10.  POINT No.1:The learned counsel for the  complainants submits  by relying upon evidence of P.W.1   and  Exs.A1 to A12 that the wife of the 1^st complainant and the mother of the 2^nd  complainant namely Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma was admitted in opposite party No.2 hospital on 06-02-2015 at                   9.15 p.m. for treatment but  the opposite party No.1  in a negligent manner treated the said Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma  and as her health was deteriorated she was taken to Vijaya Hospital, Vadapalani,  Chennai for better treatment  and died on 18-02-2015 and as the opposite party No.1 failed to  diagnose the health condition of the deceased and as the opposite party No.1  has acted in a negligent manner hence the  complainants filed this complaint against the opposite party No.1 claiming  compensation  amount  of Rs.16,07,609/-  and the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay  the compensation amount along with the opposite party No.1  as opposite party No.2 is vicariously  liable for the acts committed by the opposite party No.1   and inspite of issuing of  legal notice as the opposite parties failed to pay the compensation amount,  the complainants filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 claiming compensation and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

            On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2  and the affidavit of R.W.1 shows that  the opposite party No.1 has taken  due care  at the  time of the admission of the deceased Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma  and  provided good treatment   to her and as there  is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complaint filed by the complainants against  the opposite parties  1 and 2 is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service  and submits  for the dismissal of the complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 with costs.

             In view of the arguments submitted by the learned  counsels for both parties  and as seen from the facts of the case,  one late Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma and who is the wife of the 1^st complainant and mother of the 2^nd complainant was  admitted in opposite party No.2 hospital for treatment and later she was taken to Vijaya Hospital, Chennai for treatment  and died  in the said hospital while undergoing treatment.  In the  light of the above  said admitted facts, the  case of the  both parties has to be examined.  In this case, the opposite parties 1 and 2 except filing of the affidavit of R.W.1 no documentary evidence  were placed  on their behalf to disprove the  version of the complainant and to prove that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1.

In,  Kusum Sharma & others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others reported in                        I (2010) CPJ 29 (SC)

            Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that   when the  doctor not guilty of medical negligence  as  long as they perform their duties and  exercise ordinary  degree of professional skills    and  competence,   medical negligence not proved,   in view of settled principles of medical  negligence, No relief can be granted.

 

In,  Achut Rao  Haribhan  Khodwa Vs. State of Maharashtra   and others  reported in AIR  1996 SC 2377 =  1996 (2) SCC 634.

 

               The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows;  that  for establishing negligence or deficiency in service there must be sufficient evidence that a doctor or hospital has not  taken reasonable care while treating the patient.  Reasonable care  in discharge  of duties by the hospital   and doctors varies from case to case,  and expertise expected on the subject, which a doctor or a hospital has undertaken.  Courts would be slow  in attributing  negligence on the part of  the doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability with due care and caution.

 

In   K.S. Bhatia Vs. Jeevan Hospital and another reported in  2004 CTJ 175  (NC) (CP)

 

             The Hon’ble  National Commission held, it is for the complainant   to allege and prove negligence by expert  evidence or by producing medical reports.

In   Sudheendra Medical Mission Hospital  Vs. Kennan V.R. reported in II (2003) CPJ 146 (NC).

 

            Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission  held that the burden of proof lies on the  complainant to prove  negligence and in the absence of any such negligence, the complainants case cannot be accepted.

In    Marble City Hospitals and the Research  Centre Vs. V.R.Soni reported in 2004  (2) CPJ (102) (Rajasthan)

 

               The Hon’ble   State Commission held  that negligence has to be proved, it cannot be presumed.

               By relying upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion that  merely basing on the evidence of P.W.1  alone it is  difficult to say that  the opposite party No.1 has acted  in a negligent manner and he has  not taken any due care at the time of giving treatment to Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma  while she was  admitted in opposite party No.2 hospital.

In    Shibshree Banerjee  Vs.  Pearless Hospital & B.K.Roy Research Centre and others reported in               III (2009)  CPJ 88 (NC).

 

               The Hon’ble Apex Court held that  when expert evidence not produced,  negligence, deficiency in services not proved.

	In Rajkumar Gupta and others Vs.  Dr.P.S.Hardia  and others reported in  2007 (3) CPJ 146 and
	In  Shikha Vs. Dr. Ashoka Jindal reported in 2003 (1) CPJ 239 (NC).

             Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held   that when the complainant could not produce any expert evidence to prove medical negligence, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed.

                 By relying  upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion  that as the complainant  failed to adduce expert  evidence to disprove the contention  of opposite parties 1 and 2  in these circumstances, it cannot be  said  that the opposite parties acted in a negligent manner towards late Ramanamma and services provided by the opposite parties  is deficiency of service   and it cannot be possible to say  that  the opposite parties  have acted  in negligent manner towards late Ramanamma.

             By relying upon the above decisions and discussion made above, we are of the opinion that there is no negligence  or deficiency of  service by the opposite parties  towards late Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma  and hence  the complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite parties is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.  In view of the above said discussion, we answered this point  against the complainants and in favour of opposite parties 1 and 2.

11.   POINT No.2: In view of our answering  on point No.1 against   the complainants and in favour of the opposite parties, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed.

           In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  15^th day of  NOVEMBER, 2017.

 

         Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

07-04-2012

Sri. Sanagala Sudhakar, S/o.Balakrishna,  Resident of Ramachandrapuram, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District (chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

20-07-2017

Dr.D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy,  Consultant, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited  (KIMS), Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital,  Durgamitta, Nellore City  (Evidence affidavit filed)

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	-	Photostat copy of Discharge Against Medical advice  history Sanagala Venkata Ramanamma issued by the opposite party No.2 hospital.
Ex.A2  -	10-12-2015	Photostat copy  of Inpatient Final Bill.
Ex.A3  -	-	Photostat copies of  twenty eight bills  issued by  opposite party No.2 hospital.
Ex.A4  -	19-02-2015	Final Bill (Duplicate copy) issued by  Vijaya Heart Foundation.
Ex.A5  -	19-02-2016	Photostat copy of Death Certificate issued by  Dr.N.A.Senthilnathan,  city Health Officer (I/c), Corporation of Chennai.
Ex.A6  -	29-06-2015	Photostat copy of  Family Member certificate.
Ex.A7  -	-	Photostat copy of Aadhar No.7271 3620 9178 in the name of  1st complainant.
Ex.A8  -	-	Photostat copy of Aadhar No.6996 6563 4322  in the name of  2nd  complainant.
Ex.A9  -	06-09-2016	Legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties along with two registered post receipts.
Ex.A10  -	-	One served postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A11  -	-	Track Consignment details relating to Consignment Number RN654635516.
Ex.A12  -	10-11-2016	Reply notice from opposite parties advocate to the complainant’s advocate.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

             -Nil-

                                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri Gummadi Stalin Babu and Sri Somarajupalli Nageswara Rao, Advocates, 16-1891, Opposite to  Millenium Sub Station, Srinivasa Agraharam,                Mini by pass Road, Nellore.
2.	Sri O. Abbai Reddy and Sri M. Brahmam, Advocates, 23-1-962, Wahabpet, Nellore-524 003.

 

Date when free copy was issued: