BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),
Male Member
Friday, the 29th day of October 2010
CC. No. 07 of 2010
Between:
Chandraiah S/o Yellaiah,
Aged about 60years, Occ: Agriculture ,
R/o Pedda Gundavelly Village,
Dubbak Mandal, District Medak … Complainant
And
- Dr. Seelam Chandrashekar Reddy S/o Jagan Mohan Reddy,
Aged: 35 years, Occ: Dcotor, Eye Specialist,
R/o H.No. 3-4-308/9/A, Near Petrol Bundk,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad, Presently residing at Flat No. 302,
Rinda Residence, New Nayoli, Hyderabad.
- Hamsa Organization of Social Service Society,
Rep.by its Representative Sri Suresh,
C/o Hamsa Hospital, Narsapur, Dist.Medak.
- The Superintendent of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital,
Hamuyun Nagar, Mahindipatnam, Hyderabad.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 13.10.2010 in the presence of Sri A.Devendar Reddy,advocate for complainant, Sri A. Anand Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and opposite party No. 3 being absent, upon hearing arguments, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant is a resident of Gundavelly Village, Dubbak Mandal, Medak District. He, along with other villagers, went to Govt. Area Hospital, Siddipet for medical check up in the eye camp organized by opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 collected Rs.500/- from each of them and when receipt was insisted for the amount paid by them, opposite party No. 2 stated that he would arrange the medicines and did not pass any receipt. Opposite party No. 1 conducted operations on the complainant and other villagers in the month of December, 2008. The complainant and some other patients developed infection in the operated eye. On the complaint lodged by M. Yellaiah, Police Siddipeta-1(T) registered a case in crime No. 22/2009, dated 02.02.2009 and on their request opposite party No. 3 constituted a board of eye specialists consisting of three doctors who examined seven patients, including the complainant, and treated. The vision was normal to all the patients except the complainant, even after operation for the second time at opposite party No. 3 hospital. It was not possible for the committee to comment on the cause for the infection therefore police have closed the case as mistake of fact.
Due to negligence of the opposite party No. 1 the complainant lost his vision. Opposite party No. 1 has not taken proper care and also not advised the complaint for taking precautions for eye care and behaved rudely and negligently against the complainant and there by the complainant lost his vision and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and hence he is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. As opposite party No. 2 collected Rs.500/- from the complainant and conducted the operation, the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of The Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint.
2. The claim is resisted by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 by filing a counter of opposite party No. 2( in the form of affidavit) on his behalf and on his opposite party No. 1. The contents of the said counter affidavit in brief are as follows:
Opposite party No. 2 is a charitable voluntary organization, a registered society and opposite party No. 1 is attached to it. Opposite party No. 2 is engaged to rendering health care services including eye health care like preventing avoidable blindness due to cataract etc. and also health awareness building programs directed especially towards poor and disadvantaged and doing services ever since its inception in 2003 and has been receiving HOSS compliments. HOSS society levies no charges what so ever to the cataract affected persons for providing them necessary operations. On other hand the society itself bears the expenses relating to their to and fro transport charges, meals from the day of admission in the hospital for surgery to the day of discharge, in addition to providing medicines and spectacle lenses free of charge. Opposite party No. 1 who is attached to the organization, performs operations on behalf of the organization free of charge in the Government Area Hospital, Siddipet.The allegations in the complaint are baseless and they are raised to squeeze money from them.
It is not true that cataract screening camp was organized in Area Hospital, Siddipet as stated in the complaint. In fact it was organized at Peddagundavelly village of Dubbaka Mondal on 01.12.2008 and conducted eye screening camp free of charge. The society has not collected money from any beneficiary for medicines or for any purpose. In the said screening camp eleven cataract patients were identified and they were brought from Siddipet Area hospital for surgery on 08.12.2008. After surgery the vision of all the patients was found satisfactory and they are doing well. They were discharged on 10.12.2008 and distributed medicines to them free of charge. At that time opposite party No. 1 once ahain gave necessary instructions and advise to all the operated persons in their mother tongue i.e. Telugu precautionary measures to be followed to prevent any infection or complication and advised to them t o report to the hospital or to the members of the organizations incase of any such symptoms or complications. Frequent checkup in the Area Hospital was also advised. Opposite party No. 2 also visited the village of the operated persons in the first week of the surgery for examining the surgery cases and found all of them healthy and their vision was normal. On 25.12.2008 in his second visit to the village, he noticed some infection to the operated eye of the complainant and taken him to opposite party No. 3 on the same day for further treatment and as per the advise of the doctors, the complainant was admitted in that hospital and was operated on 27.12.2008 vide case sheet No. 15493 for treatment of infection because such infection in operated eye cannot be treated, in secondary level facilities like Area Hospital, Siddipet. Had there been any complication in between the two visits of opposite party No. 2 the complainant would have come to area hospital for second checkup. The complication was not due to surgery. The HOSS society took the patient to tertiary eye care center i.e. opposite party No. 3 for treatment, on noticing the infection as a responsible eye health care provider, only to save his vision and eye. The complainant’s version that second surgery was done to him after lodging complaint with police on 02.02.2009 is false. It is also false that Rs.500/- was paid by him and opposite party No. 2 has not passed any receipt. In fact when Dr. Suresh of opposite party No. 2 and other supporting staff were examining post operative cataract patients a mob consisting of 10 or 12 people forcibly entered in the examining room and virtually manhandled and locked Dr. Suresh in the room and noticing the same Dr. H.V. Dora, superintendent of Siddipet Area hospital lodged a complaint to the police against the mob, and to over come the same Mr. Yellaiah filed the complaint against the HOSS society. On receipt of both the complaints police investigated in to the matter and found that the complainant lost his vision not because of any negligence on the part of the doctor. who operated upon him, or on part of organization who conducted eye screening and surgical camp or due to any deficiency in service. The allegation of rude behavior against opposite party No. 1 is also false. In fact the complainant has locked Dr. Suresh in the room and man handled. The allegation of negligence against opposite party No. 1 in performing surgery is denied. There is no negligence in the surgery performed by opposite party No. 1 and infection caused to the complainant is neither the result of surgery nor negligence of the doctor. It is an infection caused to one in a thousand and the reasons are not known so far. The complainant is not a consumer to opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with heavy costs.
3. On receipt of notice from this forum opposite party No. 3 has sent a reply through courier service where in names of seven persons are noted stating that circle inspector of police, Siddipet town and DM & HO Medak referred seven victims for detailed examination by constituting a medical board with expert ophthalmic surgeons and the same was done and report was submitted.
4. In order to prove the respective contentions complainant’s evidence affidavits is filed as PW1 and marked Exs. A1 and A2 on his behalf. Opposite party No. 2 filed his evidence affidavit with a memo of his advocate to treat the same as evidence affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and marked Exs.B1 to B6 on their behalf. No arguments are advance on behalf of the complaint. Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 advanced arguments. Perused the record.
5. Point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved medical negligence of opposite party No. 1 while conducting operation to his eye?
Point:
The case of the complainant is that in the free eye camp arranged by opposite party No. 2, operation was conducted to his eye by opposite party No. 1 who is attached to opposite party No. 2. It is the further case of the complainant that opposite party No. 1 was negligent in conducting the operation due to which he got infection to the operated eye and there by lost his vision. The case of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is that it is a fact that opposite party No. 2 conducted a free eye camp and opposite party No. 1, who is attached to opposite party No. 2, conducted operations to as many as 11 persons of the village of the complainant including the complainant for cataract in their eyes. But they deny that opposite party No. 1 was negligent in conducting the operations and infection developed to the operated eye of the complainant.
Complainant himself admitted that as some of the villagers who undergone operations got infection to the eyes which were operated, a villager by name M. Yellaiah gave a complaint to police Siddipet-1(T) which was registered as FIR NO. 22/09, dated 02.02.2009 but after investigation the said case was closed as “mistake of fact”. Copy of final report submitted by police is marked as Ex.A1. A news paper cutting to the effect that due to the operations the villagers lost their vision is also marked as Ex.A2.
When the allegation of the complaint is that infection developed to his eye which was operated by opposite party No. 1 on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and due the said infection he lost his vision and when the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 deny any negligence either in conducting the operation or in taking post operative care, it is for the complainant to satisfactorily prove his allegation of negligence in conducting the operation. Except his self serving version in the form of evidence affidavit, there is nothing else before this forum to prove his allegations. Ex.A1 document does not prove his case because it is not in support of his allegations. For better appreciation, the last but one paragraph of Ex.A1 is reproduced hereunder “Thus as per the opinion of the team of eye specialists doctors it is established that the eyes condition of six patients in question is normal and post operative vision is satisfactory except one patient byname Mutholla Chanderaiah whose eye vision was not recovered even after conducting operation second time and it is not possible for the committee to comment on the cause for the infection as the rate of such type of cases is one or two in thousand patients even in tertiary eye care centers.” Coming to Ex.A2 it is a news paper publication which alone cannot be treated has evidence. Such information may be considered in support of any acceptable evidence. That is to say a paper publication cannot by itself be taken as a piece of evidence. Except the above two documents there is no other evidence on behalf of the complainant.
In order to prove negligence of a medical doctor normally there must be at least opinion of an equally expert doctor. Without such opinion medical negligence can not be taken as proved . If ex facie negligence can be seen, for example:1). if an eye without any decease is operated or treated when the patient approaches a doctor for treatment to the affected eye . 2). If a doctor left surgical instrument /instruments in the body of the person and completes operation. In such cases without insisting for proof of any other expert doctor medical negligence can be taken as proved but not in cases like the one now in hand. The complainant is neither a medical doctor nor is a person who has expert medical knowledge to say that there was negligence of opposite party No. 1 in conducting operation to his eye.
In view of the discussion supra it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1in conducting operation to his eye on behalf of opposite party No. 2. In the circumstances there is no necessity to refer to the documents marked on behalf of the opposite parties. It is therefore held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The point is answered against the complainant.
6. In the result the complaint is dismissed. However in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 29th day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Copy to- The Complainant
- The Opposite party
- Spare copy Copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Party on ________
Dis.No. /2010, dt.
