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
Friday the 20th day of July, 2007
CC.NO.75/2006
Obulapuram Suseelamma,
W /o Balasundaram,
H.No. 7/383-1,
Anjaneya Nagar,Nellore Road,Badwel,
Kadapa District. ... COMPLAINANT
Verses
Dr. K. Rajasekhar,M.D.D.G.O
C.N.Hospital,Birla Compound,Kurnool -518 002. …OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of
Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate , Kurnool, for complainant , Sri.Y.Jaya Raju
Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and after pursuing the material papers on record , the Forum made the following :-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President)
1. This case of the complainant is filed Under section 12 C.P. Act, seeking direction on the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs alleging deficiency of service of the opposite party in not
conducting Laparoscopic hysterectomy operation to her on 16.6.2004 and instead performing the said operation by open surgery caused puncture to the urinary bladder resulting into continuous urination and the said complaint not rectified in spite of catheterization and a treatment of one month in April 2005 and treatment by Urologist DR.K. Seetharamaiah and recovery from said trouble only after surgery on 10.6.2005 in Image hospital Hyderabad incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1 lakh and the suffering till then .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party caused his appearance into the case through his counsel and contested the case filling written version denying any of his carelessness or deficiencies in conducting said operation and there by any of his liability to the Complainant's claim besides requiring the strict proof of the Complainant avernments except admitting the fact of himself performing hysterectomy to Complainant and occurrence of injury to urinary bladder accidentally while separating the bladder from uterus and the repair of said injury immediately with the help of urologist DR.K.Seetharamaiah and application of cauterization to the Complainant their after till her discharge on 3.7.2004 in good condition. It further alleges that the Complainant did not made any post operative Complainant or as to any urine leakage trouble thereafter and on 9.2.2005 approached with meno pausal symptoms and underwent treatment and on 23.4.2005 the Complaint of leakage of urine was attended by Urologist DR.K.Seetharamaiah and there after the Complainant did not made any complaint as to leakage of urine and so the opposite party cannot be blamed as the Complainant was well for ten months after to her operation.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the Complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex A1 to A 18 and Ex X.1 to X.4 and the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2 besides to her sworn affidavit and of a third party and replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party and reply to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. Hence the point for consideration is whether the Complainant has made out alleged deficiency of service of the Opposite Party and there by the liability of the Opposite Party for making good of the Complainant's claim .
5. Occurrence of injury to urinary bladder while separating it from uterus was admitted by the Opposite Party not only in the pleadings but also at page No.2 of Ex.B1. It and the evidence of Opposite Party as R.W.1 also alleges the repair of said injury to bladder as good. The evidence of R.W 1 (Opposite Party) and R.W.2( DR. K.Seetharamaiah Nutrologist) who was said to have repaired the said injury occurred to the urinary bladder of complainant, says if the injury to bladder was not repaired properly it will lead to vesico Vaginal fistulla (v.v.f) within ten to fourteen days of said improper repair of said injury. As per the evidence of both the R.W.1 and R.W.2 the Complainant was discharged after healing of injury and confirmation of no complication. As per the R.W.1 and 2 the Complainant had any post operative complaint of said hysterectomy operation or said repair of urinary bladder injury for 8 months after discharged and the leakage of urine from vagina reported by Complainant after 8 months of the said discharged was also repaired by Catherisation . But from the evidence of P.W.2 DR. Nanda Kumar, who treated the Complainant at Image Hospital Hyderabad, it appears that the Complainant had the said problem of leakage of urine from vagina since one month to 7.6.2005 and she was given treatment for the same. Further the evidence of P.W 2 is that the said Complainant of leakage of urine from vagina (V.V.F) occurred on account of injury to urinary bladder during hysterectomy. In the absence of any suggestion to P.W. to that any improper repair of injury to bladder shows its complication within 3 to 4 weeks of said repair or any cogent text book authority in support of said version of R.W. 1 and 2 as to effects of improper repairs was placed, there appears any circumstance to discredit the version of the complaints side that the improper repair of urinary bladder injury resulted said complications of leakage of urine from vagina , even though the Complainant might not have approached with post operative compliant to the opposite party or R.w.2 Or any cogent material is placed as to her undergoing treatment till she joins Image Hospital for necessary treatment and cure of her complaint in about 8 months after the discharged, especially when there is any evidence on record that the said leakage of urine from the vagina was on account of any other reason other then the injury to urinary ladder and when the Complainant is alleging her consequent suffering which ultimately laid her for treatment at Image Hospital .
6. When occurrence of injury to urinary bladder during hysterectomy operation was admitted, unless the perfect repair of said injury is proved the negligence of the doctor is to believed especially when the complication of V.V.F for which she underwent treatment in Image Hospital is attributable to the injury to urinary bladder and its improper repair and in the circumstances the no tings of Ex.A.15- discharge card - as "Condition of patient good" being it a self preparatory report of the opposite party side to serve their purpose does not bear any weight.
7. As the performing of hysterectomy operation to the complainant is admitted by the Opposite Party the record in Ex.A1 to A.3 and A.5 pertaining to patients case profile, 2 - D colour Doppler - echo cardiology report and hematology report and histo pathology report relating to Complainant does not need any further appreciation as they relate to Pri diagnostic reports .
8. As hysterectomy operation was said to have been performed by the opposite party on 16.6.2004 the material in Ex.A 6 to A.10 being earlier to the role of opposite party that too on prescription of DR. B.Venkata Ramana Reddy of Proddutur they bear any relevancy for appreciation for assessing the alleged deficiency of service of the opposite party .
9. The Ex.A 13 - a bunch of 40 prescriptions- bearing any relevancy for appreciation in this case as many of them does not bear the name of the patient to whom they relate to. The last but one prescription in said bunch with an alteration as to date even though bears the name of the Complainant it is not remaining worthy of consideration for want of any bill purchasing the medicine prescribed there in .
10. In para No.4 of the Complaint an expenditure of Rs.20,000/- was alleged by the Complainant . But for want of substantiation of the same by any cogent material the said claim is rejected especially when in relief para of the complaint any prayer is to that effect.
11. The para No.5 of the complaint alleges an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant during treatment at Image Hospital. Neither the evidence of p.w to DR.Nanda Kumar, - who gave the treatment to the Complainant for V.V.F at Image Hospital - speaks as to the said incurred expenditure of the Complainant nor the Ex.A4 and A.16 record pertaining to complainant issued by Image Hospital speaks of the so called incurred expenditure nor the Complainant has placed any cogent substantiating material as to said incurred expenditure nor their appears any such mention in the sworn affidavit of the Complainant filed on 10.8.2006 for which the Complainant was caused interrogatories nor any such claim was made to said incurred expenditure in the relief Para of the complaint. Hence the said claim is rejected.
12. The relief para of the complaint makes a double claim of Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.50,000 for mental agony which is not permissible for being entertained .
13. Now coming to the relief the Complainant is entitled is concerned , as the deficiency of service of the opposite party is held in improper repair of injury of urine bladder of the Complainant which lead to V.V.F complication constraining her to take treatment at Image Hospital for its cure .
14. The evidence of Complainant as p.w.1 in cross examination says that she has paid an amount of Rs.8,000/- only to the Opposite Party for said operation and except that the Opposite Party did not take any more amount . The written version of the opposite party also says of a mere receipt of Rs.8,000/- reasonably from the Complainant as to meet the minimum expenditure of operation theatre, anesthetist charges and instruments . But the bunch of six bills issued by Opposite Party on 15.6.2004 , 16.6.2004 and 1.7.2004 evidenced in Ex.A 14 envisages receipt of cash in all to the total of Rs.10,360/- (i.e. Rs. 540/- + Rs.650/-+ Rs.500/-+Rs.650/-+Rs.20/- and Rs.8,000/-) towards various heads . Hence the Complainant is remaining entitled to the said amount of Rs.10,360/- towards the incurred expenditure of the Complainant during treatment with opposite party as the treatment render by the Opposite Party did not relive of her trouble till it was attended by Image Hospital.
15. As improper repairing of urinary bladder injury occurred during hysterectomy operation appears to be a probable cause for V.V.F complication of the Complainant and constrained the Complainant to under go treatment at Image Hospital Hyderabad for its cure , the liability of the Opposite Party lies for reimbursement of the substantiated incurred expenditure of the Complainant in that regard .
16. The Ex. A 11 is bunch of 7 receipts issued by the Image Hospital, Hyderabad in favour of the Complainant envisages as to the deposit of Rs.15,000.- and the receipt of Rs.313.22 and Rs.11.55 towards the cost of the medicine, Rs.1900/- towards I.V.P X ray , Rs.225 towards doctors consultation and Rs.695/- towards diagnostic charges of certain tests. They all totals to Rs.18.144.77 . Hence, even though the para No.5 avernments of the Complaint alleges an expenditure of Rs. 35,000/-towards operation and medicines, Rs.35,000/- towards tests and miscellaneous was incurred by the Complainant for said operation and treatment at Image Hospital, the Complainant's permissibility of entitle ness is held to the tune of Rs. 18,144.77/- @ Rs.18,145/- only at the liability of the Opposite Party towards the substantiated incurred expenditure of the Complainant at Image Hospital, Hyderabad.
17. Even though the hysterectomy operation was done by the Opposite Party on 16.6.2004 , as the Complainant was not relieved of the complication of V.V.F arisen on account of improper repairing of the urinary bladder injury of Complainant , till the Complainant underwent necessary treatment at Image Hospital the Complainant is remaining entitled to compensation for the mental agony suffered during the said period on account of said complication and in the circumstance of the case an amount of Rs.50,000/- appears to be a just compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant .
18. Hence , in the result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed holding deficiency of the Opposite Party in getting the injury of urinary bladder properly repaired and so the opposite party is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.10,360/- towards the incurred expenditure occurred during treatment with Opposite Party, Rs.18,145/- towards the incurred expenditure while under treatment at Image Hospital and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered at the above said deficient conduct of Opposite Party . The Opposite Party is also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case as constrained the Complainant to the Forum for redressal of her grievances . The Opposite Party shall comply the above said order within a month of the receipt of this order. In default the Opposite Party is liable to pay the supra stated award amount to the Complainant with 9% interest per annum from the date of default till satisfactory compliance of the award.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the open bench this is the 20th day of July, 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant :
PW1: Deposition of PW1 dated 27-10-2006 (D. Susheelamma)
PW2: Deposition of PW2 dated 05-01-2007 (Dr. Nandakumar, B. Madhukar)
For the Opposite Parties :
RW1: Deposition of RW1 dated 07-02-2007 (Dr. K. Raja Shekar)
RW2: Deposition of RW2 dated 07-03-2007 (Dr. K. Sitharamaiah)
List of exhibits marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.A1. Patient case profile issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A2. 2D Colour Doppler – Echo – Cardiology Report,
Dated 16.6.04 . Issued by Government General
Hospital,Kurnool.
Ex.A3. Haematology Report- dated 22.6.2004.
Ex.A4. Case Profile issued by Image Hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.A5. Histopathology Report – dated 21.6.2004.
Ex.A6 . Letter addressed by Bhavana Nursing Home doctor (No. in 2)
Ex.A7 Investigation Report.
Ex.A8. Receipt for Rs.500/- issued by Medinova Diagnostic Services, Proddutur.
Ex.A9. Receipt for Rs.540/- issued by Medinova Diagnostic Services, Proddutur.
Ex.A10. Receipt for Rs.295/- issued by Medinova Diagnostic Services, Proddutur.
Ex.A11. Bunch of 7 (seven) – receipts issued by Image Hospital,
Hyderabad.
Ex.A12. Cash receipt , dated 11.6.2004, issued by Life Line Transfusion Centre and Blood Bank, Kurnool.
Ex.A.13. Bunch of 40 (forty) prescription issued by opposite party.
Ex.A.14. Bunch of 6 (six) cash – receipts issued by opposite party.
Ex.A.15. Discharge card issued by opposite party.
Ex.A.16 . Discharge summary dated 25.06.2005 in three (3) papers
Issued by Image Hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.A.17. X-Ray of chest PA view of mine taken on 9.6.2005
By Image Hospital , Hyderabad.
Ex.A.18 X-Rays (No. in 4 ) films by mine taken on 8.6.2005 by
Image Hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.X1. Operation votes, dated 10.6.2005 at page No.32.
Ex.X2 Opposite party letter head, dated 7.6.2005 at page No.2.
Ex.X3 .Admission Record of Image Hospital, dated 9.6.2005 at
Page No.3
Ex.X4. Discharge summary of Image Hospital, dated 25.6.2005 at
Page No.1.
List of exhibits marked for the Opposite Parties :
Ex.B1 Case Sheet
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. Y. Jaya Raju, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties : Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. M. Azmathulla, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. I. Anantha Rama Sastry, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
