BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.863 OF 2003 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II VISAKHAPATNAM
Between
Divi Subba Rao S/o late Surayanarayana
Aged about 72 years, R/o Pendurthi
Visakhapatnam
Appellant/complainant
A N D
- Dr.V.S.S.Sarma C/o S.R.Hospital
Opp.Rytu Bazaar, Gopalapuram
Visakhapatnam - The National India Insurance Company Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager, DO-II,
Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam - Dr.P.Satish Kumar, M.S.Ortho,
general Surgeon and Oncologist
Noble Poly Clinic, 3rd Lane,
Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam
(R3 impleaded as per order dt.9.4.2010
in I.A.No.1755/09)
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants Sri A.S.C.Bose
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri K.G.Ravi Kanth
Counsel for the Respondent No.3
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND TEN
The appeal is filed by the complainant in C.D.No.863 of 2003 directed against the order dated 4.1.2006.
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant met with an accident on 25.12.2000 and he had taken first aid at B.D.Naidu Hospital. Subsequently, the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 hospital. He was assured in the opposite party no.1 hospital that the complainant had to undergo operation and he can walk within 15 days from the date of the operation. He had undergone operation on 26.12.2000 whereby POP was removed and a steel rod in was inserted in his leg. The opposite partyno.1 has collected an amount of Rs.42,998/- from the complainant towards the charges for the treatment. The complainant was discharged on 8.1.2001 from the opposite partyno.1 hospital and while discharging the complainant, the opposite party no.1 had taken the X-ray and after going through it advised him to get readmitted.
On readmitting the complainant, the opposite party no.1 hospital called for the service of the opposite party no.3 ( who is impleaded at the stage of the appeal) who expressed his opinion that no further operation is required as there was narrow gap left at the fractured site and following his advice the complainant was discharged from the opposite party no.1 hospital. As the complainant was not able to walk, he again approached the opposite party no.1 hospital who advised him to go to NRI Hospital Visakhapatnam where the opposite party no.1 and his friend has taken x-ray of the broken leg of the complainant and conducted another operation on 5.3.2001 and thereafter the opposite party no.1 had admitted the complainant in his hospital and performed another operation. The complainant was discharged on 20.4.2001 from the hospital of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 had charged an amount of Rs.31,394/- from the complainant.
The complainant developed swelling of his leg and also pain whereby he contacted the opposite party no.1 who advised the complainant to join in Krishi Hospital Gajuwaka where the opposite party no.1 conducted yet another operation on the complainant on 30.5.2001 and assured him that he can walk within 10 days therefrom. The complainant was discharged on 27.1.2001 from Krishi Hospital. Even after undergoing three operations conducted by the opposite party no.1 the complainant was not relieved of pain. The complainant approached Dr.G.Venkat Rao in Warangal who informed the complainant that he developed septic condition due to unsafe surgery. Thereafter as per advice of Dr.Lakshmana Swamy who informed the complainant that previous three operations were a failure and the complainant has to undergo the fourth operation in view of his leg experiencing septic condition. On 2.9.2001 the complainant had undergone operation and he was discharged from the hospital on 21.9.2001. The complainant incurred an amount of Rs.57,367/- towards his treatment. The complainant suffered physically and mentally as also financially due to the negligent treatment administered by the opposite party no.1. Therefore the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.5 lakh towards compensation.
The opposite party no.1 has filed counter contending that the complainant joined in his hospital on 26.10.2000 with the complaint of a fracture of both bones of leg. The opposite party no.3 examined the complainant and advised for surgery, “interlock nailing” which is a latest procedure and accordingly the opposite party no.3 conducted operation and advised the complainant to stay at the hospital till 8.1.2001. An x-ray was taken subsequently and the complainant was advised for bed rest at home for three months with frequent check ups at 15 days interval. The suggestion was not followed by the complainant which resulted non-union of bones. On 4.3.2001 opposite party no.3 had advised the complainant to undergo dynamination which is a procedure regularly adopted at Queens NRI Hospital Visakhapatnam. The complainant was discharged from the Queens NRI Hospital on 20.4.2001 with a suggestion for repeated check ups.
The opposite party no.3 had examined the complainant on 20.5.2001 and conducted distral screw locking which would hasten the processing of dealing in non-union cases and since the date he was discharged from the hospital the complainant had not contacted the opposite party no.3;He had undergone the very same operation in Guntur without waiting to get normal state of health and walk properly, the complainant went to Guntur. The opposite party no.1 had treated the complainant on the advice of the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.1 is not involved in the treatment of the complainant. It is the opposite party no.3 who conducted the operations. Entire episode of the events had taken place under the care and treatment of the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.1 had not treated the complainant. The treatment administered to the complainant in the hospital of the opposite party no.1 was exclusively as per the instructions of the opposite party no.3. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite party no.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
It was contended on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.1 is a general physician and obtained professional indemnity policy for a sum of Rs.one lakh. It was stated that the treatment administered by the opposite party no.1 is not within its knowledge nor the amount of Rs.42,998/- said to have been incurred by the complainant. The subsequent operations and the treatment of the complainant by the opposite party no.1 is stated to be not within the knowledge of the opposite party no.2. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite party no.1 and as such the opposite party no.3 claimed to have no responsibility of indemnifying the opposite party no.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
The complainant has filed his affidavit and Exs.A1 to A20 are marked on his behalf.
The opposite party no.1 has filed his affidavit. Exs.B1 to B3 have been marked on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his complaint the complainant has filed the appeal contending that the hospital of the opposite party no.1 hospital was ill equipped and the opposite party no.1 had conducted tibia operation even without ‘C’ arm in the operation theatre of his hospital.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order warrants any interference at the stage of this appeal?
The opposite party no.1 has contended that in his hospital the opposite party no.3 had conducted operation on the complainant. Further, it is the contention of the opposite party no.1 that he had not administered any treatment and all the treatment that was administered either at his hospital or Queens NRI hospital, it was done by the opposite party no.3. At this stage the appellant had moved an application for impleading the Dr.Satish Kumar who stated to have performed the operation at the hospital of the opposite partyno.1 as also at Krishi Hospital. This Commission has allowed the petition, F.A.I.A.No.1755 of 2009 and consequently Dr.P.Satishkumar was impleaded as opposite party no.3 in the complaint. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 contended that as the opposite party no.3 impleaded at the stage of the appeal there was no opportunity to contest the claim which requires filing of counter, affidavit and examination of the witnesses. Taking into consideration of submission of the learned counsel of the opposite party no.3, we are inclined to give opportunity to the opposite party no.3 to contest the claim as the principles of natural justice mandate this commission to afford an opportunity to the opposite party no.3 who has been impleaded at the stage of the appeal. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the District Forum and remand the matter for denova enquiry.
In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the District Forum. The matter is remanded for denova enquiry and the District Forum directed to dispose of the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 23.7.2010 without insisting on notice by the District Forum.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.13.07.2010
