BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 57/2012.
THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Vijayalakshmi W/o. Hanumareddappagouda,
age 27 years, household, R/o. Jalwadagi village, Tq. Sindhanoor.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. .Dr. Smt. Padma Patil W/o. Dr. B.N. Patil, Anna
Daneshwara Hospital-Sindhanoor.
2. Dr. Sri. B.N. Patil, Annadaneshwara Hospital
Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
Date of institution :- 20-07-12.
Date of disposal :- 08-08-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. J. Rayappa, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER ON ADMISSIONOF THIS COMPLAINT.
This is a complaint filed by one Smt. Vijayalakshmi against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 doctors for directing them to pay compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards deficiency in their services in treating her, with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, on 17-03-2011 she approached opposite No-1 for pregnancy test, on examination by opposite No-1 her pregnancy was confirmed and advised her to visit once again on 29-04-2011. Her BP on 17-03-2011 & 29-04-2011 was normal, thereafter, she went to the hospital of opposites for checkup on 13-09-2011. On that day opposite No-1 not present in the hospital, she consulted Opposite No-2, he advised to go for Ultra Sound Scanning Test and thereafter he advised to take some medicines. The complainant took those medicines, but her BP not controlled, accordingly, she visited the hospital of opposite No-1 on 17-03-2011. Both doctors were not present in the hospital, therefore, she took treatment in Sanjivini Hospital at Sindhanoor and thereafter in Bellary. In the meanwhile child in the womb dead. Hence, she undergone operation in Bellary Hospital dead womb was removed. She survived with difficulties, all these things happened due to negligence of opposite Nos. 1 & 2. Hence, she filed this complaint for the rleiefs as prayed in the prayer column of her complaint.
3. Heard on the admission of this complaint, perused the facts pleaded in the complaint with documents filed by her.
4. In view of the circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether complainant has made out proper, sufficient and good grounds to proceed with the case against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 doctors for alleged medical negligence shown by them in treating her.
2. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In view of the finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following:
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
6. We have meticulously gone through the facts pleaded in this complaint with documentary evidences filed by her and the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant. We are of the opinion that, it is proper to see what kind of medical negligence said to have committed by opposite No-1 as viewed by the complainant in her complaint. As per the allegations made in the complaint, complainant approached opposite No-1 doctor on 17-03-2011, 29-04-2011 & 07-07-2011 opposite No-1 examined her with para medical test reports and advised proper medicines on those days as her BP was normal.
7. The complainant visited the hospital of Opposite No-1 on 13-09-2011 but opposite No-1 was not available in the hospital, therefore she got checkup with opposite No-2 doctor. Except these facts, no allegations made by the complainant against opposite No-1 with regard to medical negligence committed by opposite No-1 doctor in treating her, we have brought this fact to the notice of the learned advocate for complainant at the time of his submissions, the said learned advocate admitted this fact, but contended that, opposite No-1 doctor is none else then the wife of opposite No-2, as such opposite No-1 was made a party in this complaint.
8. We are of the view that, this is not a partition suit to array husband, wife and others as a parties. It is Consumer Complaint. The complainant has to show prima-facie the alleged negligence of opposite No-1 at this stage. Unfortunately no such allegations made against opposite No-1, as such, we are of the clear view that, this complaint against opposite No-1 will not survive and it is a fit for dismissal.
9. Now, coming to the allegations made against opposite No-2 doctor. Admittedly complainant consulted opposite No-2 on 13-09-2011 with some complaints in her abdomen and variations in her BP. These facts noted by opposite No-2 on 13-09-2011 and advised her to take some medicines, as per prescription slip dt. 13-09-2011 on the basis of test reports. Her BP was 190/120 mmhg, he prescribed two medicines. The complainant say is that, she visited the hospital once again with some complaints on 17-09-2011, but both doctors were absent in the hospital. As such, she consulted other doctors and ultimately she got operated and the dead womb was removed in Bellary Hospital.
10. The learned advocated for complainant submitted before us by making some allegations that, the medicines prescribed by opposite No-2 on 13-09-2011 are not the medicines for to control BP. He is not an expert in the Gynecology, he failed to control BP etc., for that complainant is saying that, Opposite No-2 found guilty under deficiency in his service.
11. There is no single word in pleading in her complaint in that regard. The learned advocate for complainant submitted before us number of allegations against opposite No-2 but those allegations were not pleaded in complaint. Simply the complainant stated in Para-7 that, opposite No-2 shown his negligence. This kind of allegation against doctor is vague not understandable and we cannot find out specific negligence of opposite No-2 said to have committed by him while treating complainant. No doubt BP might not have come under control for the medicines prescribed by him, but that itself a ground to say that negligence of the doctor. Unfortunate events happened in this case was not by the negligence of opposite No.1 doctor he gave treatment on the recognized mode of treatment as available on that today. But he cannot be sacked for unfortunate events happened in the hands of other doctors. Complainant not pleaded of any such specific facts said to be negligence shown by opposite No-2 in her complaint. Hence, we are of the view that, the present pleading of the complainant are not showing any negligence of Opposite No-2 and there are no proper, reasonable and good grounds at this stage to proceed with against opposite No-2 doctor. Hence we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
12. In-view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 08-08-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
