BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.

FA.No.641/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.10/1998 

Between:

Dr.G.Ramesh, S/o.Srisailam

Aged about 44 years,

Occ:Orthopaedic Surgeon,

R/o.Nirmala Hospital,

Vijayanagar Colony,

Hyderabad.                                                                                              

M.Ganga Reddy, S/o.Hanmaiah,

Aged about 47 years, Occ:Cultivation,

R/o.Muthyampadu village,

Domakonda Mandal,

Nizambad District.                                                                                                                                           Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.B.Ravi Shankar

Counsel for the Respondent:Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam

FA.No.1620/2008 AGAINST C.D.No.10/1998 

Between:

M.Ganga Reddy, S/o.Hanmaiah,

Aged 44 years, Occ: Agriculture

R/o.Muthyampet village,

Domakonda Mandal,

Nizambad District.                                                                                                                                                    

Dr.G.Ramesh, S/o.Srisailam

Aged about 44 years,

Occ:Orthopaedic Surgeon,

R/o.Nirmala Hospital,

Vijayanagar Colony,

Hyderabad.                                                                                                                                                        

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Ravi Shankar.

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,.

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN

(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.10/1998 on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, opposite party preferred F.A.No.641/2007 and the complainant preferred F.A.No.1620/2008. 

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant, an agriculturist, earning Rs.3,00,000/- from agriculture sustained fracture to his thigh on 01-5-1997 and was taken toGovernmentHospital, Kamareddy and consulted opposite party doctor.        The complainant admitted himself in Shalini Nursing Home on 2-6-1997 and remained as inpatient upto 20-7-1997 and an operation was performed on 09-7-1997.   

Opposite party filed counter stating that he is a qualified and well trained Orthopeditian having worked with Dr.J.V.S.Vidyasagar of Kamineni hospital and admitted treating the complainant in Jeevandhan hospital, Kamareddy.  

a)                               Multiple rib fractures on left side with lung contusion associated with Haemo pneumo thorax (left) with surgical emphysema

b)                               Fracture scapula (left)

c)                                Fracture shaft femur (left) with lateral popleteal nerve palsy.   

In the light of the above injuries, treatment was done by giving I.V.fluids, antibiotics etc. and inter coastal drain with under water seal to drain air and blood from the plural cavity was also provided.     Hyderabad     Hyderabadbut did not pay any amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The appellant/opposite party contended that all due care and caution was taken as per standards of medical parlance while conducting surgery on 11-5-1997.  

Before we address ourselves to the merits of the case, we find it a fit case wherein an expert opinion is necessary to establish medical negligence in view of the judgment of the apex court inFebruary, 2009 in  

"In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is ample scope for genuine difference of opinion and one man clearly is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional men.... The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary 

The standard of care has to be judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident and not at the date of the trial. Also, where the charge of negligence is of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that point of time ……

 Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightway liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur   

We also rely on the decision of the National Commission inF.A.No.487/2005 dated 08-12-2009 in Tati Vasundara Devi v. Jagdish K.Maddineni 

Keeping these two judgments in view, we are of the considered view, this matter may be remanded to the District Forum to send it to independent government hospital/medical college within one month Copy of the expert opinion to be made available to both the parties so that they can file their written submissions along with any medical literature on the subject within one month thereafter.  

In the result both these appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. 

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                               JM                                                                    L.R. copy marked/not to be marked