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

F.A.No.444 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.28 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY

Between

Ch.V.Narasimha Rao S/o Adinarayana Rao
Aged about 28 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o H.No.2-80, Fathe Nagar,Hyderabad

1.                  Hyderabad

2.                         Hyderabad

3.                          

Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant            

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2          

QUORUM:     

&

   ***

1.     `5,000/- to the hospital opposite party no.1for which no receipt stated to have been issued on the premise that it would be adjusted at the time of final settlement.          

2.     ApolloHospital,Hyderabad Another operation was performed and it was diagnosed that the patient was suffering from peritonitis of intestine nearer to appendices.    ApolloHospital   

3.           

4.          ApolloHospitalApolloHospital. 

5.    ApolloHospital   The patient was hale and healthy till she suddenly developed abdominal pain.    

6.          

7.     

8.      

9.     

10.    

10.   

11.            

“Ineolor contoured hypo choc area of 52x34 mm with probe tenderness noted in vi 

12.   

13.   

14.   

“Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property the definition involves three constituents of negligence : (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former’s conduct within the scope of the duty; (2) breach of the said duty; and (3) consequential damage. Cause of action for negligence arises only when damage occurs; for, damage is a necessary ingredient of this tort.”II (2007) CPJ 25 (SC)E.S.I. CORPORATION

15.   

“Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill.  

16.    

Negligence  

17.     

18.    

“The blood and urine test results and the ultrasound report indicated that your client’s wife was suffering from appendicular lump”

19.   

“This opposite party correctly diagnosed the case acute perforated appendices with peritonitis.   

20.   The first opposite party had not exercised due diligence while administering the drugs when the patient complained of constant pain in her abdomen immediately after the surgery was completed.  th, May 2002 leading to complications such as hypotension which consequently resulted in respiratory distress.    

21.        ApolloHospital   Taking into consideration of all these facts, we award an amount of`1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of negligence exhibited by the opposite party no.1 in administration of the treatment to the deceased husband of the complainant. Therefore, the findings recorded by the District Forum are liable to be set aside.

22.            

23.        

         `1,50,000/- in any Nationalized Bank in the name of daughter of the deceased Baby Harshita.   `4,000/-.   

                                                                                                                              KMK*