BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.

FA.No.1039/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.85/2005 

Between:

Thadaveni Shankaraiah, S/o.T.Madanaiah,

Aged about 30 years, Indian,

Occ:Kirana Business, NRT Nagar,

Mancherial, Adilabad District.                                             

Chinthal Rajaiah @ Rajesh,

S/o.Ch.Bhikshapathi,

Aged about 18 years, Occ:Student,

Being minor rep. by his next

Friend Ch.Bhikshapati,

S/o.Chintala Muthulingam,

Aged 41 years, Occ:Coolie,

R/o.H.No.19-428/140,

NTR Nagar,

Mancherial, Dist.Adilabad.                                                                                                                               

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s.G.Devender Babu

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,.

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND TEN

(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***

           Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.85/2005 on the file of District Forum, Adilabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

          Next day there was swelling on the waist and the opposite party gave two more injections but there was no improvement so he advised the complainant to take the patient to Dr.Vijay Babu at Mancherial and also accompanied them to the said doctor.   PratimaHospital Thereafter the patient was taken to Ortho-Care hospital at Karimnagar on 9-6-2004 and thereafter to Niloufer atHyderabad AcharyaVinobhabhaveRuralHospital AcharyaVinobhabhaveHospital  The complainants submits that it is only because of the negligence of the opposite party that there was a reaction to the injection administered to the patient causing irreparable loss and disability to the patient for which he claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards expenses incurred and compensation.

        The complainant did not produce the original Ex.A1, prescription, and that Ex.A1 contains only protein syrup, B complex, Antacids and pain relieving lotion.       

Both sides filed their written arguments.

It is the case of the complainant that his wife took their son Rajesh, aged 16 years to the opposite party doctor on 19-5-2004 as the patient was suffering from allergy on the face and other parts of the body.   

We observe from the record P.W.2 is one Sri G.Gangulu, who in his third party affidavit, stated that the opposite party is a practicing RMP doctor and on 19-5-2004 when C.Rajesh developed allergy he and P.W.1 i.e. the boy’s mother took the patient to the opposite party for treatment and that the doctor administered the boy injections.                     

In the result this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation awarded from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. 

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                               JM