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
Thursday the 3rd day of May, 2007
C.C. No.42/2006
Mitta Narasimhulu Setty, S/o Narayana Setty,
Residing at Door No.9-55, Pulivendula Town, Kadapa District.
… Complainant
-Vs-
Dr.D.V.Ramana, M.B.B.S., D.Ortho., Siri Nobel Private Hospital,
Sunkesulal Road, Kurnool -518 004.
… Opposite Party
This complaint coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri.A.Krishna Murthy, Advocate, Kurnool and Sri.S.Ranga Ravi Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Sri.D.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Party and upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President
C.C.No.42/2006
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act., seeking direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs.3.25 lakhs towards incurred medical treatment and ritual expenses of M.Jayalakshmamma, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for suffered mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs of this case alleging the deficiencies and negligencies of the opposite party in the treatment and operation of complainants wife M.Jayalakshmamma for fracture of Neck of right thigh bone leading to her demise on 15-2-2005 after her discharge.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party as made his appearance in the case through his counsel and contested the case filling written version denying its liability to the complainants claim alleging any deficiency of service on its part in treatment and surgery of the complainant’s wife and thereby any of its liability for demise of complainant’s wife and complainant’s claim.
3. In substantiations of the contentions while the complainant’s side has taken reliance on to document record in Ex.A1 to A24 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant and a 3rd party (N.Sreedhara sarma – purohith as to fuleral expenses) the opposite party has merely taken reliance on its sworn affidavit and of the 3rd party – Dr.Venkata Swamy.
4. Hence, the point for the consideration is whether any deficiency of service or medical negligence on the part of the opposite party in the treatment and surgery done to the complainant’s wife was made out by the complainant so as to filed the liability of the opposite party to complainant’s claim.
5. The Ex.A1 and A2 are the X-ray of right hip and scull of M.Jayalakshmamma wife of complainant – said to have been taken on 24-11-2004. Even though any radiologist reports were filed regarding them but as the complainant himself says of as to detection of any abnormalities therein and the complaint being not as to them they remain of little relevancy for assessing any of the negligencies on deficiencies of the opposite party in the demise of the complainants wife after her discharge.
6. The Ex.A3 and A4 are the X-ray and M.R.I. X-ray of right hip of M.Jayalaksmamma said to have been taken on 03-1-2005. Even though any of its radiologist reports filed as to them but as the complainant himself says as to detection of any abnormalities therein and the complaint being not as to them they remain of little relevancy for assessing any of the negligencies or deficiencies of the opposite party in the demise of complainant wife after her discharge.
7. The Ex.A5 and A6 are the X-ray of right hip and chest and M.R.I of pelvis hip joints and Lumbar spine of M.Jayalakshmamma said to have been taken on 20-01-2005. Even though any radiologist report in filed as to the said X-ray photos but as both the parties to this proceeding admit them in broad terms as to the fracture of right neck of the right femur though differ and to its nature and gravity one (complainant) alleging it as hair lime fracture and the other (opposite party) as a definite intracapsular fracture of neck of femur. The Ex.A23 is the case sheet pertaining to said patient M.Jayalakshmamma and it says the said as fracture of neck of femur right and not as any hair lime fracture as alleged by the complainant’s side. In the absence of any such cogent material to say the said fracture observed in X-ray dt:20-1-2005 as hair lime fracture, there appears any substance in the said contentions of complainant’s side.
8. The Ex.A7 is the abdomen report dt:11-2-2005 covering the real time U.S.G of abdomen and pelvis of M.Jayalakshmamma it shows any abnormality further it pertains to post operative period of said patient as the original operation for setting right the fracture was done on 26-1-2005. Hence there appears any material in the Ex.A7 report to draw any deficiencies or medical negligencies on the part of the opposite party in the treatment and surgery rendered to the deceased M.Jayalakshmamma.
9. The complainant’s alleges as to the defects and negligencies of the opposite party in the cause of the death of the M.Jayalakshmamma as enunciated below.
i) As per the four hour temparature chart maitained by the O.P, the said patient M.Jayalakshmamma was running a temparature of 99.5 degrees and 99 degrees one day clear and on the date of said surgery on 26-1-2005 respectively. In spite of that situation to the patient the surgery was conducted by the opposite party. But any authority or cogent evidence was placed by the complainant which forbids the performance of surgery when the patient was running such temparature. Hence there appears any substance in the said contentions of the complainant to find out any deficiencies or negligencies on the part of the opposite party.
ii) No X-ray was taken after to surgery to assess success of the surgery i.e., proper fitting of “Prosthesis”. But when the opposite party contend that it is not necessary when the said operation was done under C- arm facility. In the absence of any cogent material that the said operation was done in a different mode than the O.P. alleges and any knowledge of complainant as to the performance said operation under C.arm facility or that kind of operation which the O.P. alleged also requires an X-ray subsequent to said kind of operation, nor any evidence or text book authority in support of said contentions of the complainant is filed the said contentions remains unsubstantiated and thereby devoid of any merit and force worthy of consideration.
iii) A decease like “Proximal Myopathy” does not occur all of a sudden in post operative state as it commences few years ago and increases thereafter. Except alleging as such any cogent substantiative evidence or text book authority is placed by the complainant’s side in substantiation of the contentions especially when the sworn affidavit of the opposite party and the 3rd party affidavit of Dr.Venkataswamy say that the said complication may arise to patient at any time being aggravated by the pre-existing deceases like diabetes and hypertension and it cannot be detected in normal course of treatment. Hence the said contentions of the complainant as to work out any deficiencies and negligencies on the part of the opposite party on this stand remains with any force by giving any due consideration.
iv) Development of I.D.D.M (Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus) and N.I.D.D.M to patient during the post operative period is strange and the blood sugar was high on 02-02-2005 and insulin was not given and in that circumstances the urine sugar coming to normal by evening is questionable and thereby infers the negligent conduct of the opposite party. The submission of the O.P. to this querry is that “any case of diabetes for surgery needs stabilization with insulin other than oral hypoglemie and so it is not wrong in keeping the patient on insulin in diabetic management blood sugar fluctuations are normal and depending upon the condition of the patient. Insulin has to the avoided some times and hence urine sugar coming to normal is not strange in diabetic management”. In the absence of any cogent material, substance or evidence or text book authority from complainant side impeaching the correctness of the opposite party submission, there appear any material to hold substantial force in said contentions of the complainant, especially when he is a layman on medical side to say as to that with any authority or authenticity.
v) The complainant’s side submits that stress fracture of the deceased would have been managed or averred by way of immobilization but instead as the opposite party has performed for fitting “Prosthesis” and thereby at a deficiency of service of not doing the required and of doing which is not required. But any authority on said subject or evidence of any expert on said aspect as has been placed from complainant side in support of his contentions, there appears any material to hold any excessive or deficiency conduct on the part of the opposite party in said aspect.
vi) The complainant suspects the cut of femoral nerve or some other nerve of said deceased during said surgery by the opposite party and it led to paralosis of muzzels of right leg but the opposite party attributed it to “Proximal Myopathy” – a rare decease. There being any second opinion obtained as to the deceased subsequent to said surgery performed by the opposite party which observes the cut of femoral nerve or some other nerve of the deceased contributing to the paralyzation of right leg of the deceased nor any postmortem examination was held on demise of the deceased to find out that fact is the complainant had any suspicion on the opposite party as to the later’s deficiencies on negligencies in said surgery, to get any observation of the matter which he now suspects. Nor the complainant has placed any such text book authority or evidence of any expert in support of his suspicion primafacie to shift any burden on to the opposite party.
vii) The complainant lastly observes deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in doing Prosthesis instead of fixing of screws alleging no displacement of upper and lower fragments were in said fractures and the fracture being only and hair lime type. But any X-ray report in filed to hold that truth in complainant’s contentions especially when the Ex.A23 clinical history findings of the opposite party hospital on said patient Jayalakshmamma finds the nature of said fracture other way than the complainant alleges. Neither the complainant, in the above state of circumstances whose with any cogent material that the nature of the fracture sustained by said patient Jayalakshmamma was hair lime type nor as to any error of judgment on the part of the opposite party in conducting the kind of surgery he performed on said patient Jayalakshmamma.
viii) In the absence of any her cogent material to suspect the opposite party either has not displayed that deligence which a prudent doctor would do to a patient in said set of circumstances or nor displayed any deligence in diagnosing, performing surgery and rendering post-operative care and treatment there appears any material to hold the deficiencies of services or medical negligencies on the part of the opposite party in treating the deceased and thereby any of his liability to the claim of the complainant.
10. While the Ex.A16 is the bunch of 21 Cathological Diagnostic reports relating to the patient M.Jayalakshmamma the Ex. A17 is bunch of 29 receipts as to the payments made to the opposite party by said patient Jayalakshmamma on various dates. The Ex.A18 and A21 or the bundle of receipts as to the payments made by said patient Jayalakshmamma to Gayatri Diagnostic Centre Pvt., Ltd., Kurnool and Apollo Medical Centre medical respectively. The Ex.A19 the bunch of two receipts for medicines purchased by said Jayalakshmamma. Ex.A20 is the a bunch containing several prescriptions of the opposite party prescribed to said patient Jaylakshmamma. The Ex.A24 is a bill issued by N.Sreedhara Sarma – a purohith for receipt of Rs.60,000/- towards the rituals conducted to the deceased Jayalakshmamma. When the complainant in his sworn affidavit alleges that is not financially sound and no capacity to get treatment to his wife in Multi Speciality Hospital, the expenditure he says to have incurred his her treatment and funeral rites appears to be exaggerative one creating doubt on there bonafidies. Apart from the liability of the opposite party to make good of the said expenditure incurred in that regard to have been there if any deficiency of service or medical negligency in treating the said patient Jayalakshmamma was established. As there being any such substantiations the Ex.A17 to A21 and 24 does create any liability on the opposite party for making good of them to the complainant.
11. The Ex.A22 – certificate as to the demise of M. Jayalakshmamma on
15-2-2005 continues any merit to the claim of the complainant at the liability of the opposite party except enunciating the facts of mere demise of said M.Jayalakshmamma on 15-2-2005.
12. The Ex.A23 is the xerox of case sheet pertaining to the treatment rendered to patient M.Jayalakshmamma in the hospital of opposite party. Any evidence of experts or text book authorities is placed by complainant’s side in reference to the treatment mentioned in Ex.A23 either as to the deficiency diagnoise, surgery care and treatment which ought to have been taken but not taken by the opposite party are as to any medical negligencies in said aspects, the Ex.A23 remains of any avail to the complainant to find any fault with the opposite party to make him liable for the complainant’s claim.
13. Consequently there being any primafacie material to believe any deficiency of services or medical negligencies on the part of the opposite party in surgery performed and treatment rendered to said patient M.Jayalkshmamma nor there being any cogent material linking the demise of said Jayalakshmamma to the surgery and treatment rendered by the opposite party, there appears any liability of the opposite party to the complainant’s claim. So the claim of the complainant as remains devoid of merit and force the of the complainant is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case each of the parties to this case proceedings bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us Open bench on this the 3rd day of May 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant:Nil For the Opposite Parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 X-Ray of right hip and skull of M.Jayalakshmamma
dated 24-11-2004.
Ex.A2 X-Ray of right hip and skull of M.Jayalakshmamma
dated 24-11-2004.
Ex.A3 X-Ray and M.R.I. X-Ray of right hip and skull of
M.Jayalakshmamma dated 03-01-2005.
Ex.A4 X-Ray and M.R.I. X-Ray of right hip and skull of
M.Jayalakshmamma dated 03-01-2005.
Ex.A5 X-Ray of right hip and chest and M.R.I. of pelvis hip joints and
Lumber spin of M.Jayalakshmamma dated 20-01-2005.
Ex.A6 X-Ray of right hip and chest and M.R.I. of pelvis hip joints and
Lumber spin of M.Jayalakshmamma dated 20-01-2005.
Ex.A7 Abdomen report dated 11-02-2005 covering the real time U.S.G. of abdomen and pelvis of M.Jayalakshmamma.
Ex.A8 Cultune and Sensitive report dated 07-02-2005 pertaining to M.Jayalakshmamma.
Ex.A9 MRI of pelvis hip joints, Lumbar spine dated 03-01-2005 of M.Jayalakshmamma.
Ex.A10 Thyro care report dated 12-02-2005 of M.Jayalakshmamma.
Ex.A11 Discharge card of M.Jayalakshmamma issued by opposite party on 28-11-2004.
Ex.A12 Discharge card of M.Jayalakshmamma issued by opposite party on 15-12-2005.
Ex.A13 One joint link with half circle ball said to have been inserted to Discharge card of M.Jayalakshmamma on 26-01-2005
Ex.A14 Office copy of legal notice dated 08-03-2005.
Ex.A15 Reply notice dated 28-03-2005 given to the Ex.A14.
Ex.A16 Bundle of (No.in 21) diagnostic reports of M.Jayalakshmamma.
Ex.A17 Bundle of receipts (Nos.in 29) evidencing the payment of OP.
Ex.A18 Payment receipts (Two) to Gayathri Diagnostics Center (P) Ltd., date d 03-10-2005.
Ex.A19 Medicals purchase bills dated 20-01-2005 and 21-12-2005.
Ex.A20 Bundle of prescriptions numbering 35 prescribed to patient by opposite party.
Ex.A21 Bundle of payment receipts from diagnostic charges to Apollo Medical Center numbering three (3) dated 14-02-2005.
Ex.A22 Death Certificate of M.Jayalakshmamma.
Ex.A23 Xerox copy of case sheet of the deceased M.Jayalakshmamma pertaining to opposite party Hospital in 25 pages.
Ex.A24 Bill issued by N.Sreedhara Serma as to the funeral expenses and ritual expenses.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri.A.Krishna Murthy and Sri.S.Ranga Ravi Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. D.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
