BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 4th day of April, 2007
C.D. No.107/2005
1. B. Sabitha Bai, W/o. late. B.V.Ramana Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years, presently residing At Nehru Nagar, Kurnool.
2. B. Mohan Rao, Hindu, aged about 70 years,
H.No.40/802, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool.
3. B. Sri Lakshmi Bai, D/o. late B.V.Ramana Rao, aged 19 years, student, H.No.40/802, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool.
4. B.Umakanth, S/o. late B.V.Ramana Rao, aged about 18 years, student, H.No.40/802, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool.
5. B.Srikanth S/o. late. B.V. Ramana Rao, aged 15 years, student, H.No.40/802, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool.
(The fifth complainant being minor
represented by his natural guardian
mother i.e., the first complainant) …Complainants
-Vs-
- Dr. R.Viswanatha Reddy,
D.No.46-679-A, Besides Lakshmi Nivas Hotel, Budhawara peta, Kurnool.
2. The Managing Director, Gouri Gopal Hopspitals (P) Ltd.,
46-87, Budhawara Peta, Kurnool.
…Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao and A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocates, Kurnool for complainants, and Sri. N. Nagendranath Reddy, for opposite parties No.1 and Sri. A. Siva Ramaiah, for opposite party No.2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President
1. This complaint is filed seeking, Rs.11.5 lakhs as per details of para No. 14 of the complainant as damages and compensation, with 24% interest per annum from the date of surgery and costs of the complaint, from the opposite party alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the opposite parties in medical treatment to B.V.Ramana Rao, who died on 03-09-2004 at 5 a.m. during treatment.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the deceased B.V.Ramana Rao – husband of the first complainant – on account of some discomfort in upper abdomen approached the opposite party No.1 and the latter on examination of scanning report of said deceased advised the said deceased to join in opposite party No.2’ hospital for Laparoscopic Surgery for removal of stones from Gall – Bladder and opposite party No.1 conducted said surgery on 28-08-2004 without following any precautions in unhygienic place with unsterlized equipment of the opposite party No.2, on account of which the deceased had continuous oozing of blood from the operated place and was constrained to have blood transfusion for six times and dialysis for two times and ultimately led to demise without any recovery. The opposite parties not taking reasonable skill and diligence in treatment invited the death of the deceased and the demise of deceased left the complainants in helpless state of affairs and in irreparable damage as they lost their bread winner.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 and 2 caused their appearance through their counsel and denying any of their liability to the complainant’s claim contested the case filling their written versions.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides denying the truth in the allegations of the complainant and in alleged conducting of the surgery without necessary precautions etc., as an after thought of the complainant as being not taken in notice dated:30-05-2005 of complainant. It submits that the said patient B.V.Ramana Rao came to his clinic crying and rolling with severe abdomen pain and he was suspected of duodenal Ulcer perforation, but on G.I.Video endoscopy no such ulcer was traced and on the other hand undigested food and Alcohol was vomited by said patient and on the Ultra sound scan of abdomen done at Aditya Scan Center, the patient was diagnosed with empyema due to calculus cholecystites (presence of inflamed stones of seven M.M thick- ness in Gall – Bladder) and fatty infiltrated liver due to chronic Alcoholism and said as was an acute emergency problem requiring necessary treatment, advised admission into Govt., General Hospital and the said advise was not followed by the patient but at 11-30 a.m. of the day the opposite party No.1 was requested through Dr.Praveen Kumar a Dental Surgeon of Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool to attend the said patient B.V. Ramana Rao at Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool and the said operation was performed by him with assistance of Dr. A.Lakshmaiah trained gastroenterology surgeon and Assistant professor of Kurnool Medical College, in opposite party No.2’s hospital with all needed care and caution in between 2 to 4 p.m. and says in detail all the care he has taken in the post operative care and the patient day by day thereafter, recovered to a large extent and the complaint of little respiratory distress, sleeplessness, mausia and upper abdominal discomfort complained on 30-08-2004 at 11-30 p.m. was effectively attended by nassal oxygen and administration of calmpose to relieve anxiety and on 31-08-2004 one unit of blood transfusion was given besides nassal oxygen for some time as there was some vomiting of little brown color fluid. On 01-09-2004 as the patient had coffee ground colored vomiting suggestive of upper gastro intestinal bleeding two units of fresh blood was transfused to compensate the blood loss and the high temperature of 105 degrees was brought down at 4 p.m. of 01-09-2004 renal shut down with less urine started to the patient and it was attend with haemodialysis twice with one unit of blood transfusion at each time and senior specialist Dr.T.Malakondaiah (Professor of Medicine and senior physician), Dr. C.Sreenivasa Reddy Assistant Professor of chest deceases and Senior Consultant, and Dr. A. Venkata Ranga Reddy, a Super Specialist in Medical Gastro Entrology were consulted and discussed as to line of treatment. But at 5.30 a.m. of 03-09-2004 the said patient expired due to severe sepsis septicemia resulting in multi organ failure. The culture of pus of patient revealed E.coli infection i.e., a severe infection which is resistant to all regular anti biotics and the said severity of infection coupled with the patient’s bad habits of smoking and Alcoholism and his delay in approaching the doctor, and the Acute rupture, leakage and severity of sepsis led to the ultimate demise of the patient with multi organ failure. It lastly deny to the complainant the status of consumer, as he as an experienced surgeon with philanthropic mind rendered service free to the deceases being the said patient was brought to him by his known medical representative and any medical negligence and deficiency on his part in performance of the surgery and treatment and thereby complainant entitleness any compensation nonetheless the claimed and so seeks the dismissal of the complainant’s case with exemplary costs.
5. The written version of the opposite party No.2 besides denying the truth of the complaint averments as to its deficiencies and the requiring its strict proof by the complainant, says of that of all he has learnt from opposite party No.1 as to said patient and as to the diagnosis on said patient and his complaints and denies any negligencies in conducting said surgery. It alleges that it is a super speciality Hospital established in 1991 with an object of serving the common public and attained the stage of referral hospital as providing best standards of treatment and care with latest medical and diagnosis services of experienced medicos, para medical infrastructure to combat any event of infection, communicable and bacterial and fungus and viral diseases and performing successfully 120 to 140 surgeries in every month under the hygienic condition with every care and caution in every aspect. The said patient was prepared for surgery after he being investigated as to his fitness for surgery. It reiterates what all that opposite party No.1 alleged in his written version as to surgery pre and post operative treatment given to said patient and the said circumstances for doing hemo – dialysis and of any injury to the vital organs of said patient during said laparoscopic operations, and the ability, competency and experience of the opposite party No.1 to perform said kind of operation and deny any status of consumer to the complainant to have any relief in this case and seeks the dismissal of the complainant’s case with exemplary costs.
6. In substantiation’s of the above contentions while the complainant’s side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A9 besides to the evidence of Pws1 to 3, the opposite parties side has taken reliance on the documentary record Ex.B1 to B25 and the evidence of Rws1 to 8.
7. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and thereby their liability to the complainant’s claim:?
8. The Ex.A1 is the bunch of medical bills and prescriptions numbering
243 pertaining to the deceased B.V. Ramana Rao as to the incurred medical expenditure towards diagnosis charges, purchase of medicines and prescriptions of medicines made to said patient.
9. While exhibits A2/B25 is the legal notice caused to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 under postal receipts and A3 and A4 the exhibits A5 and A6 are acknowledgement of said notice by the opposite parties No.1 and 2. It was said to have been given on the instructions of the complainant as to the latters grievances against to the opposite parties at the demise of B.V. Ramana Rao at the medical services rendered to the deceased B.V. Ramana Rao and demands an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and loss of bread winner to them at the demise of said B.V. Ramana Rao. The Ex.A8 is the reply of opposite parties to the notice of the complainant in Ex.A2/B25 denying any of their deficiency of services and thereby denying any of their liability to the complainant’s claim. The Ex.A7 is the certificate issued by Registrar of births and deaths (Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool) as to demise of B.V. Ramana Rao on 3rd September 2004 in Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool (opposite party No.2). The Ex.A9 is a discharge summary issued by opposite party No.2 containing the particulars of date of admission, date of discharge/death, date of surgery and I.P No, and committee of doctors and cause of death of the patient B.V. Ramana Rao. The demise of said patient being not much in dispute the Exhibits A7 and A9 needs any further appreciation them what they envisage.
10. The Pw1 B.Sabitha bai – the wife of deceased B.V. Ramana Rao filed her sworn affidavit and her evidence was recorded as Pw1 and B.Satish Kumar – brother of deceased B.V. Ramana Rao, was the examined as Pw2 and Dr. Ajithkumar – professor and head of the department of the Gastroentities was examined on commission as Pw3 by the complainant side.
11. The complainant alleges that due to gross negligence of opposite party No.1 in performing laparoscopic surgery and the opposite party No.2 is not maintaining hygienic condition in hospital and non furnishing sterilized equipment in the hospital it caused the death of B.V. Ramana Rao. The Pw1 Sabitha bai wife of deceased B.V. Ramana Rao, and the Pw2 Satish kumar brother of deceased B.V. Ramana Rao are not competent persons to say in that regard as they are not witnesses to said laparoscopic operation performed by the opposite party No.1 as they will not be permitted in to the operation theatre during surgery and as to any of their knowledge to say as to any unhygienicness of the tools and equipments used in performing of said operation. While such is so with Pw1 and2, the evidence of Pw3 Dr.Ajit Kumar clearly excludes any possibility to the Pws1 and 2 to know of the matters relating to the performance of surgery and usage of any unhygienic instruments during said surgery in Super Specialty Hospitals. Hence, the complainant’s side said contentions are remaining as mere contentions without any substantiations for giving any weight to it.
12. The complainant’s side further goes to the extent of questioning the competency and qualifications of the opposite party No.1 to perform surgery. But from the answer of Pw3 to the question No.4 at page No.8 of his evidence recorded by commissioner the opposite party No.1 is a qualified person to perform said surgery and the said is not mere opinion of the Pw3 but one well based on the cogent testimonials of opposite party No.1, evidence in reference to exhibits B6 to B10. The Ex.B11 to B24 marked in the evidence of opposite party No.1- as Rw1 -also says of his qualifications, experience and his participation’s in several programmes of that kind and thereby saying of his enrichment in that line. None of these were discredited by the complainant side by any cogent material. Hence, said contentions of complainant as to the competency and qualifications of opposite party No.1 to under take the performance of said kind of surgery remains as mere contentions without any substantiations to give any due weight to it.
13. While the exhibits B1 and B2 are the case sheet and progress report issued by opposite party No.2 pertaining to the line of medical treatment and services rendered to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao, the Ex.B3 is a free will authorization signed by Pw2 for the deceased authorizing the opposite party No.2 institutions and its infrastructure to conduct all necessary investigations administration of necessary treatment including surgical operation under anesthesia after being enlightened by concerned authorities of all the advantages and possible consequences, undertaking liability for full payment of dues and further agreeing not to hold the authorities of opposite parties for any legal consequences and its costs. The Ex.B4 is the progress sheet issued by opposite party No.2 as to said patient, running in several pages, covering the period from 01-9-2004 to 03-9-2004 i.e., till demise of said patient.
14. The Rw4 to8 were examined by the opposite party side to say of the line of treatment and their advise during treatment of said patient in opposite party No.2 institutions. The evidence of opposite party No.1 as Rw1 takes mention not only of the line of treatment and services rendered to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao but also the expert advise taken and followed in treatment of said patient. Nothing much was brought out in the lengthy cross examination of Rw1 to 8 to discredit his evidence on the point of any deficiency or negligency in rendering the treatment and services required to said patient or of any intentional commissions of the opposite parties, in excess than required in treatment of said patient B.V. Ramana Rao or of any intentional omissions in the treatment of said patient. But on the other hand the evidence of opposite party No.1 as Rw1 and the Rw4 to 8 envisages that all possible treatment and services with all possible care and caution were rendered to said patient. Further from the answers of Pw3 to several questions posed to him in his examination as witness, finds any deficiency or negligency of the opposite parties in medical services rendered to said patient.
15. While the evidence of Rw2 Mohammad Rafik and Rw3 L.Siva Kumar in their cross examination provides any worthy material as to workout any deficiency of opposite parties in medical services rendered to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao. The evidence of Rw4 Dr.T.Malakondaiah which was placed by the opposite parties side to lend affirmation to his sworn affidavit averments, says that he advised on 01-9-2004 to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao – who was found with septicemia, bleeding. Multi organ failure – to stop administration amicacin and Zobiod injections as blood urea level was 220 and S.Creatinine level was 9.21 and to restrict the administration of intraveinous fluids and also advised cold sponzing with water to control temperature and administration of pentasid injection to control bleeding of ulcers. Nothing was suggested in the cross examination to the said witness that the said situation occurred to said patient on account of any over dosing or insufficient administration necessary and required medicines or at the improper diagnose and line of treatment to infer any medical deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in treatment of the said patient and thereby to make them liable for the demise of the said patient.
16. The Rw5 Dr.V.Venkta Ranga Reddy a physician cum Gastroenterologist was examined by the opposite party side to lend affirmation to his sworn affidavit averments, says that he was consulted on 01-9-2004 in treatment of said patient B.V. Ramana Rao who was then under oxygen administration and he noted at page No. 50 of Ex.B1, perusing the endoscopic report of said patient, as normal. Nothing was suggested to him as to any excess administration of doses of medicines or insufficient administration of medicines to said patient by the opposite parties during treatment of later has brought the said situation to said patient, to infer any deficiency of medical services of the opposite parties towards said patient.
17. The Rw6- Dr. C.Sreenivasa Reddy- who was examined on opposite party side to lend affirmation to his sworn affidavit averments says of his visiting the said patient and observing the medicines noted at serial No.9 and 10 of page No.46 of Ex.B1 given to said patient were sufficient and hence he has not advised any new medicines. This circumstance shows that necessary medicines warranted to the situation of the patient were only provided to the patient during the treatment. Nothing was suggested in his cross examination to discredit his evidence and to infer any deficiency of medical services and treatment to said patient.
18. The evidence of Rw7 Dr.A.H.Praveen a Dentist of opposite parties hospital was placed by the opposite parties side to the fact of his recommending to the opposite party No.2 for giving concession in the hospital charges to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao. As the evidence of this witness doesn’t say anything as to any line of treatment given to the said patient the said evidence is not remaining much relevant for working out any deficiencies of the opposite parties in the treatment and medical services rendered to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao.
19. The Rw8 Dr.Y.Anthoni Reddy examined by the opposite party side is nonelse than the Executive Director of the opposite party No.2 institution. His evidence not only affirms the averments of his sworn affidavit but also gives out of what all care and caution was taken in the surgical operation performed on said patient B.V. Ramana Rao but also says of the line of treatment given in the post operative stage of said patient. Nothing much to discredit his evidence comes forth in his cross examination to find out any deficiency of medical services and treatment rendered to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao and to hold the opposite parties liable to the demise of said patient B.V. Ramana Rao.
20. The evidence of Pw3 says that the fatty infiltration of liver found in said patient is suggestive of the later as chronic alcoholic and the evidence of Rw4 T.Malakondaiah with reference to the entries of page No.49 of Ex.B1 is that the said patient B.V. Ramana Rao as Alchoholic and Smoker. As per the evidence of pw3 the increase of the blood urea shall be on renal failure and the S.G.P.T will increase in septicemia, Which probablises vital complications. The cause of death of said patient was said to be on account of multi organ failure and renal failure. Hence, the said demise of said patient in the above state of circumstances appear to be more on account of vice habits of the patient than on any account of medical negligencies or deficiencies in medical services of the opposite parties either in pre or post operative treatment of said patient.
21. The learned counsel for the complainant takes attention of this forum to a decision of Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in A. xavier Vs Contonment polyclinic and others reported in I (2005) C.P.J page 229, where the hospital and its doctor were found liable for negligent acts of treatment in a case where surgery for removal of gall bladder was performed without any such need for any such emergency operation and without providing intensive care unit and ventilator facility. But there being any suggestive material on record in this case that the said operation was done with in sufficient equipment or was done with little care and caution nor any suggestive material there on record as to any deficiency in medical services rendered either in pre or post operative stage to said patient till his demise, the above decision is having any relevancy of its appreciation and applicability to the set of circumstances of this case.
22. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, at New Delhi in K.L.Bhola Vs Khara hospital and others reported in II (2005) C.P.J page 394 is placed for appreciation by the complainant’s side, where in a false and misleading representation regarding disease were made and painful injection and drugs were administered unnecessarily, was held as a unfair trade practice in medical services and thereby the liability of the opposite parties therein for compensation to complainant therein. But in this case there being any such material in the evidence adduced that such a deception has been played on the deceased and any unnecessary treatment was given to the said patient B.V. Ramana Rao by the opposite parties, the above decision is having any relevancy and applicability to the facts and the circumstances of this case.
23. The decision of Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi, in minor E.by Vs G.E.M. Hospital and other reported in III (2004) C.P.J. 37 (N.C), was taken reliance by the complainant side to say the reasons for infection may be use of injection needle as infection may be introduced through careless needling and improper sterilization and fluids used for injection and thereby the negligence on the part of the Hospital staff and Doctors and thereby the latter’s liability to pay compensation. But in this case there being any such cogent material to believe the usage of none sterilized equipment by the opposite parties in said surgery to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao or in his post operative treatment and on the other hand the evidence of Pw3 and Rw8 says of use of sterilized equipment only in the hospitals, there appears any relevancy and applicability of the supra stated decision to the facts and circumstances of this case.
24. The decision of Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Rejimathew and another Vs Dr. Radhakrishnan and another reported in page No.197 of land mark judgements on Consumer protection is placed by complainants side to say that no expert evidence is required as negligency and deficiency of service could be proved on the principle of Resipsa loquiter for holding joint and several and liability for medical negligence to pay damages in a case where a Cardiac arrest of a child occurred on account of improper administration of oxygen during operation and the child became crippled for life. But in the present case there being any such circumstances inviting the principle of Resipsa loquiter either in the surgery performed on said patient or in the post operative care treatment of said patient, for working out any medical negligencies on the part of the opposite parties, the supra stated decision remains with any relevancy for its appreciation and application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
25., The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achyutarao Haribabu Khodwa and other Vs state of Maharastra and others reported in 1996 (2) Supreme Court cases page 634 is take reliance by the complainant’s side to say that the test for determining negligency of Doctor in his medical services – is of a reasonable skill, knowledge and care, and the observation of Resipsa loquiter principle is made in a case where a mop (towel) was left inside abdomen while conducting sterilization operation by a doctor in hospital which caused pus formation and Peritonitis and ultimate demise of said patient in second operation conducted to ascertain the cause of ailment. But there being any such material brought out in record to feel any such negligencies or deficiencies on the part of the opposite parties in said surgery performed to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao or in his post operative care treatment nor any circumstances were brought out to feel the display of any little care or less skill in surgery or in post operative services and treatment of said patient, the supra stated decision remains with any relevancy of its applicability to the facts of this case.
26. The decision of Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Dr.Kaligounden Vs N.Tangamuthu reported in III (2004) C.P.J 29 (N.C), holds the deficiency of doctors and his medical negligency in a case where he removed organ without carrying any pre operative assessment, in circumstances not warranting such an operation, which led to renal failure and septicemia. But in this case any such material is placed on record to say any such omission in conducting pre operative assessment or of any circumstances as to non essentiality of said operation and the said omissions or commissions if any on the part of the opposite parties resulted in septicemia and the renal failure to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao, the supra stated decision remains with any relevancy for its appreciation and applicability to the facts and circumstances of the complainant’s case.
27. The decision of Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Sheela Hibra Naik Gaunekar Vs Apollo Hospitals limited Chennai reported in III (2005) C.P.J 56 (N.C.) wherein the doctors were held liable for their negligence in post operative treatment of the patient to whom an Angioplasty was carried out without crucial tests such as E.C.G. But in this case no such material was brought out to say what essential tests ought to have been carried out in pre and post operative treatment and services and any omission of them by the opposite parties and whether such an omission has really lead to the ultimate demise of said patient B.V. Ramana Rao. Hence, the supra stated decision finds any relevancy of its appreciation and application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
29. The complainants side lays reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, at Bangalore rendered in Geeta and others Vs Wockhardt Hospitals and Heart institute and others reported in III (2006) C.P.J. page No.207, wherein, it was held that the development of further complications after successful surgery if are not explained or reasoned, the same necessarily due to lack of post operative care by the opposite parties. But when nothing was suggested to the opposite party side evidence that the said cause of demise of the said patient B.V. Ramana Rao to any specific lack of post operative care or non observance of any such wanted care which must have led to the complication with which the said patient died i.e., multi organ failure renal failure etc., and on the other hand the cause of demise was specifically mentioned in record maintained by the opposite parties as to said patient and from the vice habits of said patient, as the said patient appears to have invited said state of circumstances which led to his ultimate demise. and in that circumstances the doctors however skillful and efficient they may be in their profession they may not repair the state of affairs of said patient which the later acquired by that time by his vice habits and in such a case the failure inspite of best skill and performance of doctor cannot be attributed to any presumption as to the lack of medical care either during treatment the supra stated decision remains with any relevancy of its appreciation and applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case especially when there being explanation and reasons from the opposite party side for development of the so called further complications which led to demise of said patient.
30. In the present case the material placed by the complainant’s side envisages the services rendered by the opposite parties were paid services and thereby the complainants are acquiring the status of consumer as contemplated in the C.P. Act. A mere status of consumer in not sufficient to have compensation from the opposite party as the deficiency service in case of services and defect a goods in case of defects in furnished goods only entitles for compensation. In the present case there being any material to believe the deficiency of service or negligence in rendering appropriate medical services to said patient and thereby there is arising any circumstances for claim of compensation to the complainant’s, the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi rendered in Haryana Sate and another Vs Guddi reported in 2006 C.P.J page 71 (N.C.), which holds as bad the award of compensation by forum without any finding as to the service the deficiency of which was alleged for claiming compensation as paid services, remains with little relevancy for its appreciation and applicability to the set of circumstances of the complainants case.
31. As any cogent material is brought out in the case record to say the opposite party No.1 who performed surgery on said patient B.V. Ramana Rao and rendered post operative treatment also till the demise of said patient, did some thing or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do so, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab and another reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court cases page no.1 relied by the complainant appears to be of any relevant applicability to the set of facts and circumstances of this case.
32.In the result of the above discussion on legal and factual side there being any material on record to believe the deficiency of medical services or negligency in medical service rendered by the opposite party to said patient B.V. Ramana Rao and on the other hand the demise of said patient with the complications arisen in post operative treatment has anything to do with the services rendered by the opposite parties and the said state of circumstances being more on account of vice habits of the said patient B.V. Ramana Rao and thereby cannot be attributable to any deficiency or negligencies of the opposite parties in the services rendered to said patient, except to the infate of said patient and his family members, as the could not survive inspite of all possible treatment rendered by the opposite party to the best of their ability. Hence, there appears any bonafidies in the claim of the complainant and any liability of the opposite parties to make good of the greedy claim of the complainant.
33.Consequently, the case of the complainant fails and so the complaint is dismissed and in the circumstances of the case the parties to this case proceedings bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 4th day of April, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: For the Opposite Parties:
Pw1: Deposition of pw1, Dt:31-1-06 Rw1: Deposition of Rw1,Dt: 02-6-06 (B.Sabitha Bai). (R.Viswanatha Reddy).
Pw2: Deposition of Pw2, Dt:27-2-06 Rw2: Deposition of Rw2 Dt:19-6-06
(B.Satish Kumar). (M. Rafik).
Pw3: Deposition of Pw3, Dt:22-4-06 Rw3: Deposition of Rw3, Dt:19-6-06
(Dr. Ajit Kumar). (L. Siva Kumar).
Rw4: Deposition of Rw4, Dt:06-7-06
(Dr.T.Mala Kondaiah).
Rw5: Deposition of Rw5, Dt:06-7-06
(Dr.V.Venkata Ranga Reddy).
Rw6: Deposition of Rw6, Dt:06-7-06
(Dr. C.Srinivasa Reddy).
Rw7: Deposition of Rw7, Dt:06-7-06
(Dr. A.H. Praveen).
Rw8: Deposition of Rw8, Dt:27-7-06
(Dr. Y.Anthony Reddy).
List of Exhibits marked for the complainants:-
Ex.A1 Bunch of Medical bills & subscriptions (Number in 243).
Ex.A2 office copy of the legal notice Dt:30-5-2005.
Ex.A3 postal receipt Dt:31-5-05.
Ex.A4 postal receipt Dt:31-5-05.
Ex.A5 postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A6 postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A7 certificate of death.
Ex.A8 Reply notice, Dt:19-6-2005.
Ex.A9 Original Discharge summary of Gowri Gopal Hospital, record of B.V.
Ramana Rao, Dt:20-11-2004.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Case sheet of Gowri Gopal Hospitals (P) Ltd., Kurnool.
Ex.B2 progress Report (Ex.B1 page No.43.)
Ex.B3 Authorization for Investigations Surgical operations, procedure Treatment
& payments. (Ex.B1 page No.33).
Ex.B4 progress sheet. (Ex.B1 page No.53).
Ex.B5 signature at B5 of page No.2 of Ex.B1 (is of my father in Law B.Mohan
Rao).
Ex.B6 M.B.B.S Certificate of Sri. Venkateswara University (Notarized copy).
Ex.B7 Diplomate of the National Board Certificate.
Ex.B8 Laparoscopic Training certificate.
Ex.B9 Certificate of Membership in I.A.G.E.S.
Ex.B10 Laparoscopic Experience Certificate.
Ex.B11 M.B.B.S. Registration certificate issued by Andhra Medical council of
India.
Ex.B12 Diplomate of National Board certificate.
Ex.B13 Certificate of participation in 5th word congress of International – Hepato-
pancreato-Biliary Association.
Ex.B14 Certificate of participation in Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo
Surgeons, New Delhi.
Ex.B15 certificate of participation in Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo
Surgeons, New Delhi Endo Surgery, 05
Ex.B16 certificate of .I.A Endo Surgery New Delhi, Endo surgeons, 1999.
Ex.B17 certificate of participation in Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo
Surgeons, Chennai.
Ex.B18 certificate of participation in Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo
Surgeons, Chennai.
Ex.B19 certificate of participation in Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo
Surgeons, Chennai.
Ex.B20 certificate of participation in as faculty in international conference AMASI
Con-2005.
Ex.B21 Certificate of chaired a session on Laparoscopic Surgery.
Ex.B22 Certificate of chaired a session on National Conference of Royal college of
surgeons of Edinburgh, Hyderabad.
Ex.B23 certificate of participation in Endoscopic & Laparoscopic surgeons of
A.S.I.A., Hyderabad.
Ex.B24 Brochure of I.A.G.E.S selected as member of National Advisory Committee
on Laparoscopic Surgery.
Ex.B25 Notice issued by the complainant Dt:30-5-2005 (Ex.A2).
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. B. Sabitha Bai, W/o. late. B.V.Ramana Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years,
presently residing At Nehru Nagar, Kurnool.
2. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
4. Dr. R.Viswanatha Reddy, D.No.46-679-A, Besides Lakshmi Nivas Hotel,
Budhawara peta, Kurnool.
5. N. Nagendranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
6. The Managing Director, Gowri Gopal Hospitals (P) Ltd.,46-87, Budhawara
Peta, Kurnool.
7. A. Siva Ramaiah, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
