BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Monday the 30th day of October, 2006
C.C. No.139/2004
S. Pedda Sankaraiah alias
Pedda Sankaraiah Goud
S/o Sunkanna, aged 65 years,
Gunthakandala (v), Velugodu(M),
Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
Dr. K.G. Govinda Reddy,
Padma Chandra Kidney Center,
Nalanda Complex, Rajvihar Center,
Kurnool. …Opposite party
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Honb’le President
1. This complaint is filed under sec, 12 of C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages/compensation with 24% interest P.A. from 20.08.2000, loss of agriculture income of Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering and Rs.1.7lakhs as other expenditure and costs alleging the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party in endorsing in discharge summary dated 9.11.2000 wrongly as D.J. Stent removed and giving improper treatment to extract money which ensured not only financial loss of incurred medical expenditure but also loss of agriculture income on 15 acres at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per year and also the suffering with high infections and various problems of ill health for three years.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that during June 2000 the complainant approached the opposite party with complaint of abnormal pain and burning sensation while passing urine and admitted in Padma Chandra Kidney Center, at Kurnool run by the opposite party for rendering paid services, and under went on 07.06.2000 uretero Lethotripsy for removal of stones in ureter and insertion of a double “J Stent in right side Ureter i.e. Urinary track and the opposite party gave treatment for tuberculosis during said time without getting any diagnosis tests and discharged on 12.06.2000 advising continuation of same treatment thereafter also and the fees paid to the opposite party is Rs.20,000/- and his medical expenditure was Rs.20,000/- and the complainant even though continued his treatment with the opposite party the complainant was never advised for removal of stent and on 07.11.2000 the complainant joint the opposite party hospital for removal of stent inserted earlier and was discharged on 09.11.2000 by the opposite party and an amount of Rs.5,000/- were collected by the opposite party as fees for removal of stent and endorsed in discharge summary as “D.J. Stent removal Done” in the presence of complainant and 1. Ravindra Kumar. Even thereafter the complainant had the problem in passing urien and pain in abdomen, increase of sugar level in Blood, inspite of using Hydose of Insulin, the opposite party was approached several times for necessary treatment till August 2003 but did not have they relief and so consulted another Urologist Dr.K.Seetaramaiah who after necessary investigations and X-ray of Kidney Ureter Blader and reports and its scanning report given by Dr.A.Venkatesweara Rao of Appolo Diagnatic Center Kurnool, found the existence of the stent in urieter of the complainant and then the complainant could notice the fraud committed on him by the opposite party as to the removal of stent, and on being confronted with said Diagnostic reports the opposite party as to the existence of stent and miled enlargement of prostate the opposite party foundled and assured removal of stent free of cost and operation for miled prostate enlargement at concessional rate and so the complainant joining opposite parties hospital on 28.08.2003 and the opposite party conducting operation for prostate enlargement only advising the removal of stent six months thereafter as the said cannot be done in said circumstances and discharged the complainant on 07.09.2003 and the complainant sustaining an expenditure of Rs.30,000/- in said Surgery and the opposite party advising the continuance of the prescribed machines. There being no relief and on the other the problems being aggravated the complainant joining Nijam Institute of Medical Sciences Hyderabad, on 27.05.2004 and there under went a surgery for removal stent incurring an expenditure of Rs25,000/- and discharged of 30.05.2004. The complainant learnt then through the Doctors of N.I.M.S. that all his suffering was ill effects of stent arising out of Ureter infection and uncontrollable Diabetes as stent was not removed within three months of its insertions. His prolonged ill ness effected the complainant agriculture to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- in three years. The opposite party did not remove the stent as represented, with a dishonest intention to extract more money by unfair trade practice of profession. The existence of stent came to the notice of the complainant through Dr.A.Venkateshwararao on 24.08.2003 and inspite of bringing the same to the notice of the opposite party a later did not bather for its removal and there by committed deficiency of service by not displaying due diligence at the complainant treatment.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of complainant, the opposite party has caused his appearance and contested the case denying the liability and alleging insertions of D.J.Stent to the complainant in the opposite parties hospital on 07.06.2000 and at the time of discharging advising review at every fifteen days and its neglection by the complainant by his irregular conduct and complainant approaching the opposite party on 07.11.2000 for removal stent and his discharge on 09.11.2000 after its removal and taking all required care and caution at every step in treatment and renal failure was an account of prostate enlargement with diabetic neuropathy i.e., Prosthetic obstructions, and the obstruction due to prostate enlargement could be solved by open prostate surgery or endoscopic surgery and not by mere Catherisation which gives only a temporary relief and the alleged mental agony and the suffering of the complainant was not at any negligence of opposite party in treatment but at the negligence and irregular conduct of the complainant in follow up of Medical advise and his Wrecklessness towards health being the complainant a Chronic Alcoholic and with other ill health problems. The stent found at K.U.B.(Kidney Uriter and Blader) region of the complainant was not the inserted by the opposite party as any stent which is for more than three months, develop encrustations to the entire stent and no such encrushment being found to the stent in the body of the complainant the said must be a subsequent insertion and so it denies of any deficiency of service of the opposite party in lending treatment to the complainant and alleged the cause for suffering of complainant was due to the laters irregular and Wrecklessness conduct of the complainant in follow up of medical advise and review and the compliance of the medical advise properly. It lastly allege the treatment being given free of cost the compliant cannot be considered as consumer and case is liability dismissed.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complaint’s side has relied upon the document record in Ex.A1 to A16 besides to its Sworn Affidavit and of a third party, evidence of Pw1 and 2 and evidence of Dr.V.Surya Prakash recorded by the commissioner appointed by the forum and replies to the interrogatories exchanged with the other side, the opposite party side has taken reliance on the document record in Ex.X1 to X4 and B1 and B2 besides to its Sworn Affidavit and of a third party and replies to the interrogatories exchanged with the other side and evidence of Rw1.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the deficiency of service of the opposite party in the form of medical negligence is made out making liable the opposite party for the claim of the complainant.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has miss represented as to the removal of the stent and was responsible for his subsequent suffering and unwarranted medical expenditure.
7. The Ex.B1 –case notes pertaining to the complainant issued by the opposite party with date of admission as 07.11.2000 and date of discharge and 09.11.2000 bears an entry as “D.J. Stent removal Done” and the Ex.B2 the case sheet envisages the details of the treatment the complainant has under gone in the opposite parties hospital from date of admission on 04.06.2000 till date of discharge on 12.06.2000 .
8. The evidence of Pw1-Dr.K.Seetaramaiah Urologist – in reference to Ex.A2 and A3 (i.e.,) X-ray of abdamin in ultra sound examination and its report) observes a stent in the right Kudney and right Ureter of the complainant on the laters approach to him on 24.08.2003 with Urinary problem, and feels the region for the complaint’s of complainant was the existence of stent intube and prostate enlargement and the maximum period for retention of stent is three months from its date of insertion as other wise it would cause infections, stone formation leading to its breakage and renal (Kudney)failure thereafter and it will be more so in case of diabetics and in Ex.A2 he did not found the presence of such stones and hence the age of said stent was less than three months.
9. The evidence of Pw2 – Dr.Nanda Kumar consulted Urologist and assistant professor department of urology in N.I.M.S. who was in team of Doctors which performed the surgery for removal of D.J. Stent from the complainant on 27.05.2004 also express the same opinion as to the period for which a stent could be retailed and the ill effects of the retention of the stent beyound the maximum period three months as would develop encrustations (Stone Formation) and make difficulty at its time of removal breaking into pieces leads to causing Urinary infection and the stent so removed by there team in reference to Ex.A2 was not found with any encrustations.
10. By this evidence of Pw1 and to it remains clear that the stent found by the Pw1 and 2 in the complainant was of less than three months old and thereby the said stent removed in N.I.M.S must be one that must have been inserted recently and not of that which was said to have been inserted by the opposite parties on 09.06.2000 the removal of which was disputed by the complainant, especially when the complainant could not rebutt the removal of stent alleged in Ex.B1 by any immediate X-ray of said stent which shows the age of said stent as more than three months old in reference to any encrustations formed there on to hold without any doubt the falsity in said entry of Ex.B1 as to removal of stent.
11. The evidence of Dr.V.Suryaprakash Assistant Professor Urology Department N.I.M.S. Hyderabad who was examined on commission on 14.05.2006-even though finds some encrustations at lower part of the stent which was removed his evidence does not lead to any inferrance that the said stent was the same which was originally inserted to the complainant by the oppposite party in the year 2000-as he is unable to say even as to the probable period for which a stent could be retained. and positively says the retention of stent cannot cause prostate enlargement. As per his evidence the stent so removed by him was not in abnormal position of getting breakage’s at the time of its removal by operation. This also shows the stent so removed from the complainant was not an old one to suspect it as one that was inserted originally by the opposite party to complainant and that one which was said to have been misrepresented as to its removal. His evidence further says that if the patient requires the stent can be inserted any number of times, coupled with the position of the stent with any grave abnormalities infers the said stent removed by him was not that which was inserted to the complainant in the year 2000 by the opposite party. Hence the evidence of this witness remains of any much avail to the case of the complainant.
12. As to the other allegations of complainant as to the opposite party lending treatment to other complications such as T.B. etc., the reply of the opposite party to the interrogatories of the complainant is satisfactory answering at the said answers and medical aspects avered in the reply to the interrogatories were not discredited by any other cogent material by complainant. Hence those allegations carries any merits and force to the find any deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
13. The decision of Hon’ble Nation Commission cited by the learned counsel for the complainant reported in 2006 C.P.J page 71 (N.C) (Hariyana State and another Vs Buddi) have no relevancy for its application to this case of the complainant as the dispute here is deficiency of medical services on the part of the opposite party towards complainant and not much about the fees paid for rendering service.
14. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996(2) Supreme Court cases page 634(Achyutarao Haribahu Khodwa and other Vs state of Maharastra and others) cited by the learned counsel for the complainant also friends no much relevancy of its application to the facts and circumstances of the complainant’s case as in the said case the circumstances therein itself making out the negligence of the Doctor and in the present case as discussed in earlier paras in reference to the evidence of Doctor’s adduced, there being any such circumstances to feel of Res- ipsa loquitor and thereby any liability of the opposite party.
15. From the material adduced by the complainant it appears that the complainant has not only taken treatment at the opposite party but also at various others creating doubtful circumstances as to his subsequent bonafied conduct and treatment he has under gone with them. When such is so there appears any liability of the opposite party as enunciated by the Hon’ble Nation Commission in Mrs.Bimla Jain Vs N.P.Singh Hospital through Dr.N.P. Singh and another reported in 2002 National Commission Judgement page 494 (N.C).
16. As the supra stated circumstance is not envisaging that the stent which the complainant alleges was not removed by the opposite party and which he alleges as cause for his ultimate sufferings is the one and the same that was inserted by the opposite party and on the other hand the said stent observed by the Doctors (Pw1 and 2 in reference to its corresponding to X-ray shows that it was a recent insertion, any amount of other material appearing the record requires any appreciation.
17. From the evidence of Rw1 – K.P. Naidu Assistant Manager N.C.C. Head Quarter Canteen- the complainant is a liquor card holder entitled to have at subsidy rate six full bottles of 750ml each of any combination for his personal use and the complainant has availed the liquor under said card. Nothing much to discredit the veracity of said witness, on the aspect of complainant as said liquor holder availing the liquor there under comes fourth in the cross-examination of said witness. In the above state of circumstances envisaging the complainant as liquor card holder availing the liquor there under, the contentions of the opposite party that the complainant as a Chronic Alcoholic suffering with other aliments telling upon his health and his little care to his health to be true and in the circumstances of the doubt as to the alleged the stent the complainant appears to be guilty of suppression of real facts and the case appears to be a vexatious one brought by the complainant with the ulterier dishonest intention to make an unlawful gain.
18. Consequently in sum up of above discussion, for want of merit and force and in failure of the complainant side making out the alleged deficiency of service of the opposite party and thereby any of the later liability for the complainant’s claim the case of the complainant is dismissed with the costs further ordering an amount of Rs.1,000/- under section 26 C.P. Act as costs to
the opposite party and its payment by the complainant to the opposite party within a month of this receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 30th day of October, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Party : Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Medical Report issuaed by Dr.A.Venkateshwara Rao M.D., Radiologist.
Ex.A2 X-ray (Dr. K.Seetharamaiah).
Ex.A3 Report of Ex.A2 X-ray.
Ex.A4 X-ray filing issued by department of Imageology Nizam’s Institute of
Medical Sciences, Hyderabad.
Ex.A5 X-ray filing issued by department of Imageology Nizam’s Institute of
Medical Sciences, Hyderabad.
Ex.A6 X-ray filing issued by department of Imageology Nizam’s Institute of
Medical Sciences, Hyderabad.
Ex.A7 Discharge Record.
Ex.A8 Commissioner report along with article record evidence.
Ex.A9 Discharge summary card D.O.D. 12.06.2000.
Ex.A10 Discharge summary card D.O.D. 09.11.2000.
Ex.A11 Complainant test treatment B1 with opposite party dated:07.11.2000.
Ex.A12 Complainant test treatment B1 with opposite party dated:11.09.2002.
Ex.A13 Discharge summary card D.O.D. 07.09.2003.
Ex.A14 Medical billing (2) of M/s. Sindhu Medicals Kurnool. dated:04.10.2002.
Ex.A15 Attested xerox copy of pass-book of complainant (patta No.204).
Ex.A16 Attested xerox copy of pass-book of complainant (patta No.693).
Ex.X1 Liquor Card (S.B. Sankaraiah).
Ex.X2 Details of Liquor collection statement.
Ex.x3 Relevant entering of daily liquor issue register (14.11.2002 to
03.12.2003).
Ex.X4 Relevant entering of daily liquor issue register (14.11.2002 to
03.12.2003).
Ex.Pw1 Deposition of Pw1 (Dr. K.Seetharamaiah) dated:22.11.2005.
Ex.Pw2 Deposition of Pw2 (Dr. Nanda Kumar) dated:23.12.2005.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Padma Chandra Kidney Center, case sheet (in 2 pages) original
dated:07.11.2000.
Ex.B2 Original Padma Chandra Kidney Center, case sheet (along with
endowment)dated:04.06.2000.
Ex.Rw1 Depositing of (K.p.Naidu, Asst., Manager) Unit Run Canteen, NCC
dated:18.07.2005.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. A. Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
