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

F.A.No.1315 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.28 OF 2002 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM NIZAMABAD

Between

1.                         2.           

3.                                

1.               

       2.          

       Govt.Hospital, 3.           

4.                  

Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant            

Counsel for the Respondent No.1   Counsel for the Respondent No.2                    

QUORUM:     

&

 Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
  

1.    

2.     GovernmentHeadquartersHospital      

3.    GauthamiHospital     `3,000/- per month and due to the negligence of the opposite parties they have lost all the earnings in the loss of the first complainant’s husband and therefore claiming compensation of`5 lakh.

4.       X-ray of the abdomen showed no signs of ulcer perforation and investigation done on the patient revealed that the patient was suffering from high blood urea, as against the normal range between 20 mg/dl. and 40 mg/dl and when the patient was admitted the blood urea level was not high.    

5.       

6.        

7.       On 2.3.2001 in the morning rounds the patient complained abdomen pain, lower quadrant, history of vomiting and tender in right iliac fossa, heart and lungs were normal and he was restless. The findings were noted in the case sheet.    

8.     

9.       

10.   

11.    

12.   

The points for consideration are:

1)                                       Whether the opposite parties rendered negligent medical treatment to the deceased husband of the complainant no.1?

2)                                       To what relief?

13.        DistrictHeadQuartersGovt.Hospital, Nizamabad.    

14.          

15.               

15.   

16.     The opposite party no.1 states that X-ray of the patient had not revealed any symptoms of ulcer perforation as there would be gas between the liver and diaphragm of a patient suffering from ulcer perforation and the X-ray of the patient had not revealed presence of any such gas in the aforementioned area.   

17.     

18.      

“It is incorrect to say that the patient was suffering with duodenal ulcer perforation.  

19.     

20.      

21.    

22.    GouthamiHospitalRamadeviHospital. The    

23.      `1,000/-from the brother of the complainant no.1.  

24.   `5 lakh towards compensation. `3,000/- per month.  `3,000/- per month.     

          `.1,00,000/- to the complainants together with costs of`2000/-.   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          KMK*