A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
C.C. 44/2010
Between :
K. Sanjeev Kumar alias Kamma Sanjeeva Rao
S/o K. Papa Rao alias Kamma Papa Rao and Dhanalaxmi,
Aged 33 years, Occ :Agriculture, R/o Kopparthi Camp Village
Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District
( Amended cause title is substituted as per the orders passed
In CCIA no. 800/2011 dated 02.03.2012 )…..
And
- Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS),
Rep. by its Managing Director
Minister Road, Secunderabad, A. P.
- Dr. B. Bhaskar Rao, s/o not known to the
Complainant, aged not known, Occ : Cardio Thorasic Surgeon,
Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS),
Minister road, Secunderabad – 500003.
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
Division office No. 4, first floor, 6-2-976, Pavan Estates,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Divisional Manager
(Proposed party is added as opposite party no. 3
As per the orders passed in CCIA no,. 801/2011
Dated 02.03.2012
Counsel for the Complainant
Counsel for the Opposite parties
Coram
And
Wednesday, the Thirtieth Day of January
Two Thousand Thirteen
****
01.This is a complaint filed by the complainant originally against the opposite parties 1 and 2 only seeking
2. The brief facts of the complaint
3.
The complainant got operated for Sever Mitral Regurgitation on 19.012005 and was discharged on 27.01.2005.Again , he was readmitted on 02.02.2005 with a complaint of chest heaviness and breathlessness and after giving
04.
05.
06.
07.
(I )
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
08.
The case of the complainant is that he had undergone surgery in the hospital Ops. The Ops pleaded that the person who had undergone surgery in the hospital is K. Sanjeev Kumar but not Kamma Sanjeeva Rao and therefore the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. In view of the said defence, it appears that the complainant filed IA 800/2011 seeking amendment of cause title and it was allowed vide orders dated 02.03.2012 and accordingly the cause title was amended showing the complainant as K. Sanjeeva kumar alias Kamma Sanjeeva rao and in view of the said developments the objection of the Ops in the said context is of no use any more.
09.
There is no dispute that the complainant consulted Dr. G. Ravikanth of OP.1 hospital on 29.10.2004 and that for the operation of Mitral Valve Replacement an estimation for Rs.1,50,000/- was given by the said hospital. Thereafter, the complainant was admitted into the hospital; on 02.02.2005 with complaint of vomitings and Dyspnea and that after treatment he was discharged on 5.2.2005 advising him to come again for review after five days PT and INR after 15 days.
“It was the respondent’s case before the State Commission and the National Commission that after the surgery in November, 1993, she was having pain in the abdomen off and on and, on that account, she was restless at home and also at work place and had to take leave including sick leave on various occasions. Therefore, it was reasonably expected of her to have contacted the appellant and apprised him about her pain and agony and sought his advice. That would have been the natural conduct of any other patient. If the respondent had got in touch with the appellant, he would have definitely suggested measures for relieving her from pain and restlessness. If the respondent was not to get relief by medication, the appellant may have suggested her to go for an X-ray or C.T. scan. In the event of discovery of gauze in the respondent’s abdomen, the appellant would have taken appropriate action for extracting the same without requiring the respondent to pay for it. If the measures suggested by the appellant were not to the satisfaction of the respondent and the pain in her abdomen persisted then she could have consulted any other doctor for relief. However, the fact of the matter is that after the surgery, the respondent never informed the appellant that she was having pain in the abdomen, was restless and having sleepless nights. At no point of time she contacted the appellant and sought his advice in the matter. Not only this, she did not consult any other doctor including those who were working in the Government Hospital where she was employed. Any person of ordinary prudence, who may have suffered pain and discomfort after surgery would have consulted the concerned surgeon or any other competent doctor and sought his advice but the respondent did nothing except taking some pain killers. If the respondent had been little diligent, she would have contacted the appellant and informed him about her sufferings. In that event, the appellant may have suggested appropriate
The said decision
10.
When complaint is barred by limitation, we feel that there is no necessity to go into the merits of the case with regard to deficiency in service on the part of the ops and also the quantum of compensation etc. and therefore they are not answered.
11.
CC No. 44/2010
Kamma Sanjeev Rao (Complainant)
And
Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) (Opposite party)
Chief affidavit of Complaint filed and Ex. A1 to A16 marked.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the complainants
Ex. A1
Ex. A2
Ex. A3
Ex. A4
Ex. A5
Ex. A6
Ex. A7
Ex.A8
Ex.A9
Ex.A10
-10-
Ex.A11
Ex.A12
Ex.A13 CareHospital
Ex.A14 CareHospital, dated 23.10.2008
Ex.A15 CareHospital,Hyderabad
Ex.A16 CareHospital
Opposite Parties :
EX.C1 Hyderabad.
