BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.247/2013 in C.C.No.43/2009, District Forum, Nalgonda.
Between:
Sri Chinthakunta Sathaiah S/o.Ramaiah
Aged 45 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o.Gottiparthy village, Thungathurty
Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..Appellant/
Complainant
And
Dr.Gundla Muralidhar
S/o.Chinna Peramaiah, aged 40 years,
Occ:Government Doctor in
PHC Thirumalagiri and owner and
Private Medical Practitioner in Vennela Prasuthi
And General Nursing Home, Thorrur Road,
Thirumalagiri Town and Mandal,
Nalgonda District 508 223. Respondent/
Opp.party.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s P.S.P.Suresh Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondent:M/s V.Gourisankara Rao.
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalakrishnaTamada, President.)
***
The complainant approached the District Forum, Nalgonda and filed C.C.No.43/2009 against the opposite party/respondent herein stating that there is medical negligence on account of which the complainant’s testis was removed. On account of removal of testis, he suffered loss and as the same amounts to medical negligence, he filed the said complaint claiming a total compensation of Rs20,00,000/-.
The same was resisted by the opposite party/respondent herein stating that there was no medical negligence on his part and the complainant himself is responsible for the reason that he did not follow the advice given by him.
Before the District Forum, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and R.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and also Exs.A1 to A30 were marked on behalf of the complainant and B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of the opposite party. Having considered the entire material on record, the District Forum held that there is no evidence to establish that the opposite party is negligent and dismissed the complaint.
As stated supra, the said order is under challenge before us.
The learned counsel on either side have advanced lengthy arguments and during the course of the said arguments, this Commission had entertained a doubt as to whether this matter can be decided by this Commission in a summary manner or evidence has to be recorded by a competent civil court. When such a question is posed by this Commission, both the counsel have unequivocally admitted that it is a matter where evidence has to be let in and this Commission cannot decide the issue. In the light of the said consensus between the parties and also our doubt, we are of the considered view that the parties herein have to approach a competent civil court and agitate their rights by leading cogent evidence as provided under Civil Procedure Code.
Accordingly this appeal is dismissed giving liberty to the parties herein to approach a competent civil court and agitate their rights by leading cogent evidence as provided under Civil Procedure Code. There shall be no order as to costs. It is needless to observe that the time spent in prosecuting the complaint before the District Forum and the appeal before this Commission is exempted and the appellant/complainant is at liberty to approach the competent civil court and the period spent between the filing of the complaint before the District Forum and the appeal this Commission and the disposal of the matter today by us will be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Trai Foods Ltd vs National Insurance Company Ltd and others” reported in (2004) 13 SCC 656.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.23-7-2014.
