BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.265 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.349 OF 1995 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM NIZAMABAD
Between
G.Sudershan S/o Pothanna
Age 53 years Occ: Seed Certification Officer
R/o Nizamabad District Nizamabad
Appellant/ complainant
A N D
1. Dr.G.Madhusudhan S/o Sambaiah
Age 62 yrs, Occ: Medical Practitioner
Consultation Physician and formerly
Civil Surgeon with Regd. Medical Practioner
No.1786 R/o Khaleel Wadi, Nizamabad-001
2. Dr.J.Raghunatha Rao, M.D.,
age 65 years, Occ: Formerly Dy.Civil Surgeon
Head Quarters Hospital, R/o Khaleelwadi
Nizamabad-001
3. The New India Insurance Company
through Branch Manager, Nizamabad Branch
Divisional Office, Subhashnagar
Opp.Zilla Parishad Office, Nizamabad
Respondents/ opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants Sri Y.Yellanand Gupta
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri D.Venkat Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Served
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 Smt K.Aruna
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The unsuccessful complainant filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum, Nizamabad in C.D.No. 349 of 1995.
The complainant, a seed certification officer approached the respondent no.1 on 15th February,1995 with complaint of mild weakness and loss of sensation in his right hand. The complainant paid fee an amount of Rs.50/- for which the first respondent had not issued any receipt. The respondent no.1 advised for blood test and urine test and after getting the tests conducted, the respondent no.1 prescribed some medicines. Even after the course of the prescribed medicine, there was no change in the condition of the appellant. The appellant lost sensation in his both hands and legs. On 16th February, 1995 the appellant consulted again the respondent no.1 who prescribed some other medicine which did not yield any result. Loss of sensation had spread to chest and other parts of the body of the appellant. The appellant consulted the respondent no.1 on 17th February,1995 and that time also the respondent no.1 prescribed some medicine advising the appellant not to worry as it was a case of general body weakness.
The respondent no.1 did not bother to consider the appellant’s complaint and every time the appellant met him, prescribed some medicine or the other. The appellant consulted the second respondent who had not issued receipt for the fee of Rs.50/- he received from the appellant. The second respondent did not advise for any tests opining that it was a case of general weakness and prescribed some medicine. Even after the duration of the prescribed course of medicine there was no improvement in the condition of the appellant. The appellant lost any sensation of hot or cold and he could not walk anymore. The appellant was, on 21st day of February,1995, shifted to NIMS, Hyderabad where he was diagnosed to have suffered from LGBS- Laundry Gullion Barry Syndrome. On the very same day the appellant was admitted to the NIMS where the doctors informed him that had he been not admitted on 21st Februay,1995 there could have been a high risk to his life.
The appellant was treated in NIMS for about 141 days from 21st February 1995 till 11th July 1995 and thereafter he was advised rest. The doctors at NIMS informed the appellant that if the disease was diagnosed in its initial stage it could have been cured within 2 to 3 weeks. The appellant incurred an amount of Rs.49,000/- for his treatment apart from loss of salary during the period of treatment. The appellant attributed negligence to both the respondents stating that for about five months he could not recover from the illness but for the treatment rendered by the respondents.
Opposite party no.1 filed counter contending that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of provisions of the C.P. Act. No doctor can diagnose a disease as one of the prospective symptoms basing on a subjective symptoms. The question of weakness is a subjective symptom of many diseases such as normal general weakness, muscular pains, nerves pain, paralysis, cardiac problem etc. On the basis of subjective symptoms no treatment can be given for any treatment except giving treatment for general diseases. On thorough external and physical examination of the complainant the opposite party no.1 prescribed drugs for strength. As the weakness is possible and common diabetic and hepatic patient the opposite party no.1 got tested FLBS and TSB and found the values within the limits of normal range. After two days of observation and basing on clinical analysis and subjective symptoms, the opposite party no.1 prescribed a tranquilizer Trika .25mg on 17.2.1995 for relief from pain and mental tension. From 15.2.1995 to 17.2.1995, the complainant has not suffered any pain numbness weakness in any limbs or loss of power, loss of sensation, loss of reflexes or any tinglingness. The complainant came to the opposite party no.1 walking himself and without any others help. The temperature, blood pressure touching sensation, power in the hands and legs, sugar and hepatitis symptoms were found normal. Basing on the examination, the opposite party no.1 or any other specialist would not feel that it is the symptoms of neurological disorder or any type of paralysis much less laundry’s gulliaon barry syndrome. This symptomatic disease will develop slowly. At Nizambad nerve conduction test was not available. The opposite party no.1 had not felt any necessity for referring the complainant to Hyderabad. The weakness i.e., paralysis of all the four limbs of the complainant developed, increased and progressed even after admission in NIMS and after effective and latest treatment was given. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The opposite party no.2 contended that on 19.2.1995 the complainant approached him and at that time the complainant had not complained any loss of sensation of touch. The main symptoms by which anybody thinks of peripheral poly neuropathy is by loss of power, loss of sensation and loss of reflexes which were not detected on the opposite party no.1 examination of the complainant. The opposite party no.2 found the temperature, BP normal. No loss of sensation, no loss of motor power or reflexes or any other signs of neurological disorder were found. As per the NIMS case record the complainant developed facial paralysis a day prior to admission i.e., on 20.2.1995. The loss of power to some extent on 21.2.1995 was a subsequent development. Plasmapherisis is the only the advancement in treatment that had happened about 25 years ago. This treatment was given to the complainant at NIMS only when he failed to improve with supportive treatment. All necessary treatment was given by the opposite party no.2 similar to the treatment given by the doctors at NIMS. The clinical examination and treatment of the complainant done by the opposite party no.2 was careful, diligent and meticulous. The charge of negligence against the opposite party no.2 is frivolous and motivated.
On behalf of the opposite party no.3 it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 treated the complainant by prescribing the drugs according to their best ability by showing maximum care and vigilance. As different diseases will manifest similar symptoms, there is possibility of the doctor coming to a different conclusion in good faith at the earlier stages.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is whether the impugned order requires any interference?
The appellant had approached the respondent o.1 on 15th February 1995 with a complaint that he suffered from mild weakness as also loss of sensation in his right hand. The respondent no.1 prescribed the tablets as stated in Ex.A1. Prior to prescription of the medicine, the respondent no.1 advised the appellant for blood sugar. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent no.1 went on prescribing some medicine or the other and as such the loss of sensation in his right hand had spread to the other limbs of his body and ultimately he was compelled to approach the respondent no.2. Though the appellant has contended that he had consulted the respondent no.1 more than three times as on 16.12.1995 till 17.2.1995, except Ex.A1 he had not placed any evidence on record to substantiate the contention. The contention of the appellant in regard to the role of the second respondent is that the respondent no.2 also had prescribed medicine basing on the reports taken on advice of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 in his evidence has categorically stated that the weakness in the limbs of the appellant progressed even after his admission to the NIMS and on 18.2.1995 none of the defects detected in NIMS were manifested in the appellant. According to him there was no treatment for LGB Syndrome and he did not feel any criteria for presence of LBG Syndrome in the appellant on 18.2.1995 and as such he wanted to review it three days therefrom for which the appellant had not visited him again.
The appellant had laid reliance on the evidence of PW3, AMKK Meena, Addl, Professor Neurology, NIMS who stated that she had admitted the appellant. At the time of admission the appellant was weak and his condition was stable. Further she had stated that the appellant had mild weakness in the upper and lower limbs and he had incomplete facial nerve policy. In the NIMS EMNG Test was conducted. Apart from the blood test, blood sugar, blood urea and peripheral smear test. In the NIMS they suspected Gullian Barree Syndrome and some other diseases can also present the same symptoms as GBS. On 23.2.1995 his weakness was increased for which they started plasma pheresis without which treatment, generally the patients could recover. In her cross examination she has stated that the tests plasma pheresis system was introduced in the year 1992 only in corporate hospital hospitals in Andhra Pradesh and if the appellant had come to her with the same history narrated by him, she could have adopted the same line of treatment as had been done by the respondents no.1 and 2.
The statement of PW3 supports the version of the respondents that they had adopted correct line of treatment and they did not, as such exhibit any negligence in the course of treatment rendered by them while the appellant was consulting them before being admitted to the NIMS. Hence, in the light of the statement of the PW3 who is an expert and Addl, Professor Neurology, NIMS, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The other contention of the appellant that the member who delivered the order was a junior in the office of the advocate for the respondent no.2 has no force since we have come to the conclusion independently of the opinion of the District Forum. The member ought not to have participated in process of justice dispensation system insofar as the present case is concerned. Justice should not only be done but it must appear to have been done. As aforesaid, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the conclusion is that the appeal is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
30.12.2009
KMK*
