BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu
President.
Sri N.J.Mohan Rao,
Member.
AND
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Wednesday, the 28th May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 25/2004
Between:
V.Mahipal Reddy,
S/o.V.Venkat Narsimha Reddy,
Age: 30 years,
Occu.: Advocate,
R/o.Mahabubabad,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. Dr.S.Hanumantha Rao,
B.Sc., M.B.B.S., M.S.,(Gen.Manipal)
M.Ch.(Plastic, Osmania) FAGE HEAL WELL
BURNS & PLASTIC SURGERY CLINIC,
H.No.7-7-336,
Beside Alankar Theater,
Main Road,
Hanamkonda.
2. The National Insurance Company,
Opp.:M.G.M.Hospital,
Warangal.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. M.Prabhaker Rao, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. A.Narsimha Rao, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri. K.Sreenath, Advocate
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
:: ORDER ::
Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu President
This is a complaint filed by the complainants i.e. V.Mahiphal Reddy against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to grant an amount of Rs.3,12,000/- towards damages, compensation, deficiency of service, gross negligence etc., against the person and property of the opposite party and any other relief or relieves.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
01. The complainant stated that, at the time of undergoing Plastic Surgery of opposite party assured and promised the complainant that, the burned at the midst of two eye brows will diminish within two months after surgery, then the complainant believed the opposite party and surrendered his entire body to the opposite party and underwent the Plastic Surgery and the operation completed successfully but the complainant face became more ugly than the previous looking. Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice to the opposite party then he gave adamant answer, thereafter he filed this case before this Forum as there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and his liable to pay compensation as per the contents of the complainant.
Opposite Parties filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
02. The version of the opposite party counsel that, the Doctor is an experienced Doctor he conducted so many operations and the Plastic Surgery conducted by the opposite party in a good manner and there was no any complications was arise, after Surgery, the complainant has not taken care for the scar at the midst of two eye brows the same spot is like that and further arguments of the opposite party counsel that, the complainant neglected even though the Doctor gave suggestions by way of that, the sun light cannot be touch the operation part but the complainant without following the same he moved like anything i.e. the reason that spot came like that.
03. The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-01 to A-13. On behalf of opposite parties Sri A.Narsimha Rao filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Ex.B-1 & B-3.
04. Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.3,12,000/- towards damages, compensation deficiency of service, gross negligence etc.,
05. After the arguments of the both side counsels, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has not entitled to get any amount from the opposite parties, because after gone through evidence of PW-1 as well as evidence of RW-1 and documents Exs.A-1 to A-13 and Exs.B-1 to B-3, it is clearly goes to show that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and the opposite party No.1 clearly stated that, the complainant had visited him with a branding scar and clearly explained to him i.e. Scar Revision can be done with improvements, but he never told this Scar removed, as it is impossible to do so. Once the tissue is cut, the human body deposits cement like substance for healing of the wound, which results in a Scar. Even prior to the operation he had clearly explained to the complainant about the procedure, side effects and complications etc., It was also informed to him that as the branding Scar was in between the eyes there will be a little tightening, but would relax in due course of time. He also explained about the possibility of Hypertrophic scarring depending upon the skin characteristic of the complainant. A sensitive skin reacts more to the trauma i.e., the operation and produce more fibrous tissue, which is nothing but a Scar. So as per the contention of the RW-1 it is clear that, the Surgery was performed successfully conducted and he was advised about post operative care, precautions to be taken and rest to be taken, not to expose himself to sunlight, dust and heat, to use the ointments, silicon gel sheet and head band and to see that the dressing does not get wet and further the Doctor had advised some post operative scar i.e. the complainant has not followed the same, as per the precautions the complainant has to take some rest and not to expose the sun light, dust and heat, to use the ointments, silicon gel sheet and head band and to see that the dressing does not get wet. So really the complainant followed the same precautions certainly there cannot be any Scar in the midst of the eye brows and more over in this case the complainant present before this Forum and we observed his face and we found that, there is no any Scar in the midst of the eye brows of the complainant, but it is visible and almost all the same Scar covered into the skin of the face, so there is no any Scar or anything in the midst of the eye brows of the complainant and we feel that the operation conducted by the opposite party is successfully and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. When there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.2 is also not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and in this case, it is true that, the Plastic Surgery operated by Doctor i.e. opposite party No.1 is an experienced Doctor, he conducted so many operations as per him. The complainant has not examined any one of the expert Doctor from his side to show that the opposite party No.1 has not conducted the operation properly i.e. the reason the Scar was their in the midst of the eye brows, but anyhow we already observed the face of the complainant and the scar is not visible and it is covered in the skin of the face, hence we answer this point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get anything from the opposite parties.
POINT No.2 WHAT RELIEF:-
The first point is decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant. This point is also decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result this complaint is dismissed but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today i.e. 28th May, 2008).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT ON BEHALF OF O.P.
Affidavit of Complainant Affidavit of Opposite Parties
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALFOF COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A-1 is the prescriptions issued by Opposite party No.1, dt.:24.4.03.
2. Ex.A-2 is the Blood HIV screening Tests report by opposite party No.1.
3. Ex.A-3 is the Drugs list by Opposite Party No.1.
4. Ex.A-4 is the prescriptions by opposite party No.1 dt.:05-05-03.
5. Ex.A-5 is the prescriptions by opposite party No.1 dt.:08-05-03.
6. Ex.A-6 is the prescriptions by opposite party No.1 dt.:01-08-03.
7. Ex.A-7 is the Office copy of Legal Notice issued to opposite party No.1, dated 19-11-2003.
8. Ex.A-8 is the Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due Postal Receipt.
9. Ex.A-9 is the Acknowledgement Due by opposite party No.1.
10.Ex.A-10 is the Reply to Legal Notice by complainant to opposite party No.1.
11.Ex.A-11 is the Photograph with negatives before Surgery of complainant.
12.Ex.A-12 is the Photographs of complainant after Surgery of complainant.
13.Ex.A-13 is the Photo Studio Cash Bill for Rs.50/-.
ON BEHALF OF Opposite parties
- Ex.B-1 is the Policy duplicate schedule policy.
- Ex.B-2 is the Professional indemnity policy for Doctor & Medical Practices.
- Ex.B-3 is the copy of Legal Notice by complainant to opposite party.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT.