Complaint is filed on 5-12-2009
Compliant disposed on 26-7-2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.,LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 210 OF 2009
Between:
- Thammanaveni Siddartha, S/o. T. Rajaiah, Age 03 years minor.
- Thammanaveni Sathwik, D/o.T.Rajaiah, Age 01 year 03 months minor.
Both are R/by Maternal Grand Father Polam Ilaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Age 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Pochampalli, V/o. Manakondur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Complainant
AND
- Dr.Smt. Suguna, W/o. Parthasarathi Rao, Age 50 years, Occ: MBBS Doctor, R/o. H.No. 4-1-72, Satya Nursing Home, Osmanpur, Karimnagar.
- Thammanaveni Raju @ Rajaiah, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age 35 years, Occ: Agrl., R/o. Renikunta, V/o. Thimmapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
(Amended as per orders passed in I.A.No.104 of 2011, dt.24-6-2011)
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 26-7-2011, in the presence of Sri N. Gattaiah and M.A.Saleem, Advocates for the complainant, and Sri K. Yadagiri, Advocate for opposite party no.1 and Sri G. Srinivas Goud and G. Satish, Advocate for opposite party no.2, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following.
::ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards the compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony to the complainants.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant no.1 & 2 are minors and children of deceased Thammanaveni Renuka W/o.T.Rajaiah. The deceased admitted in the opposite party’s hospital on 3.4.2008 for second delivery and gave birth to a son. The opposite party no.1 who is not surgeon conducted surgery on Thammanaveni Renuka. While under going treatment Thammanaveni Renuka died due to failure of operation. At the time of admission into hospital, the deceased was hale and healthy. Due to the death of deceased the minor children lost their beloved mother at their younger age. The father of minor complainants remarried another woman and living separately. The minor complainants are under the care and custody of their maternal grand father and are leading miserable life.
3. After the death of deceased, the relatives of deceased raised gallata in the hospital, then opposite party no.1 promised to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation to the children of the deceased and requested that not to conduct postmortem on deceased. The relatives of deceased believed the assurance given by opposite party no.1 and kept quite. Thereafter, they requested the opposite party no.1 to pay the agreed amount. But the opposite no.1 deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- each in the names of minor children on 13.7.2009 and handed over the F.D.Rs to the grand mother of complainants and promise to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within few months. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 refused to pay the payment of compensation. Hence, the complainants have no alternative remedy except to approach the Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay compensation. Therefore, the complainants filed this complaint.
4. The opposite party filed counter denying the averments made in the complaint and submitted that the deceased Thammanaveni Renuka was old patient to their hospital and her first delivery was done in the same nursing home by the same doctor. Further the deceased used to visit for periodical check up from 15.12.2007 to 16.3.2008 as she was pregnant second time. She was anemic from 15.12.2007 as such opposite party n.1 prescribed some medicines on every date of visit for increase of hemoglobin and blood. Again on 3.4.2008 at 8.00 A.M. the deceased came to the nursing home for delivery but the opposite party no.1 refused her to admit into the nursing home for delivery. But the husband and relatives of deceased requested the opposite party no.1 to admit her in the nursing home as the first delivery was done in the same nursing home. By considering their requests the opposite party no.1 admitted her in the nursing home and examined properly, due to anemic she was suffering mild pains. But the opposite party no.1 waited for 2 hours, and explained the situation of the deceased to her husband and relatives as there was no chance of normal delivery and she requires operation as the deceased first delivery ended with operation. The opposite party no.1 refused to conduct operation as the deceased was anemic and suffering low percentage of hemoglobin and blood. But on the request of husband and other relatives the opposite party no.1 conducted operation in the presence and assistance of Dr.T.Vidyasagar (Anesthesin) and Dr.S.Sagar Rao (Surgeon) and the deceased gave birth to a healthy male baby. After operation the baby and the mother were healthy.
5. Opposite party no.1 further submitted that the she is a qualified MBBS Gynecologist having 25 years experience in Gynecology besides that husband of the opposite party no.1 also MD Doctor. Dr.Vidya Sagar advised blood transfusion of 10 gms to the deceased as she was anemic patient. The same was informed by opposite party no.1 to the husband of deceased advised him to bring the blood required. After examination and cross checking of the blood brought by the husband of deceased the opposite party no.1 started blood transfusion under her supervision. But at 11.00 PM the deceased patient suffered breathless and restless and at 11.30 PM pulse rate of deceased slowly fall down, as such the opposite party no.1 immediately called the Dr.T.Vidya Sagar and Dr.S.Sagar Rao, on their advise immediately stopped blood transfusion and started necessary, emergency treatment by providing 100% 02 through ETT, but the deceased died at about 1.30AM.
6. On 4.4.2008 the husband and relatives of the deceased called some Village elders to opposite party’s nursing home. In the presence of elders the opposite party no.1 prepared to send the dead body of the deceased for postmortem but the husband of the deceased and relatives strongly protested the doctor and requested the opposite party and her husband Dr.O.Parthasarathy Rao MD not to send the dead body for postmortem. In the presence of elders, the husband and father of deceased executed an agreement voluntarily on 4.4.2008 in favour of opposite party by admitting and agreeing the facts as there was no negligence and carelessness on the part of opposite party and the same was signed by the husband and father of the deceased. After one year of the said incident, the father of the deceased Renuka approached the opposite party no.1 and requested the doctor to give declaration form to get death certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar which helps the minor complainants. The opposite party no.1 believed the innocence words of father of deceased Renuka and to help the minor complainants signed on the declaration papers, but the complainant filed this false claim basing on the Death Certificate issued by Municipal Corporation by violating the agreement Dt: 4.4.2008 and thereby created mental tension, harassment and defamed the opposite party and her nursing home in the society. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed the photo copies of application for Death Certificate and Death Certificate which are marked as Ex.A1 & A2.
8. The opposite party did not choose to file Proof Affidavit and filed original agreement executed between the husband & father of the deceased and the opposite party is marked as Ex.B1.
9. The documents called by the Forum to proceed with the case are marked as Ex.C1 to C4. Ex.C1 is the application for Death Certificate Dt: 23.3.2009, Ex.C2 is the Death Report Dt: 23.3.2009. Ex.C3 is the Death Certificate of deceased Dt: 8.9.2010. Ex.C4 is the Account Opening Form along with photo copy of House hold Card.
10. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, if so, to what relief the complainants are entitled?
11. Both guardian of minor complainants and minor complainants and opposite party no.1 & no.2 present. The guardian filed petition seeking permission to compromise with opposite party no.1 in I.A.No.120/2011 Dt: 28.6.2011 and the same was allowed and permission is accorded. The guardian filed today compromise petition in I.A.No. 134/2011.
12. The statement of guardian and next friend of minor Complainants is recorded.
13. In the compromise petition and the statement of guardian and next friend of minors, it is stated that earlier filing of the complaint an amount of Rs.50,000/- each was deposited by opposite party no.1 in the names of EACH minors i.e. Siddartha & Satwik. Complainants to be withdrawn after attaining their age of majority. The said amount was deposited in Union Bank, Branch Manakondur of Karimnagar district. The Xerox copy of the F.D.Rs issued by Union Bank is filed with complaint. The F.D.R.Nos. are 303-41982 and 303-41983 both Dt: 13.7.2009. Original F.D.Rs are with father of minors by name ThammanaVeni Raju @ Rajaiah (Opposite party no.2)
14. Today i.e. on 26.7.2011 an amount of Rs.50,000/- each is deposited in SBH, Court Complex Branch, Karimnagar in the names of both minor complainants under F.D.R. Nos. 62195553267 and 62195553585 Dt: 26.7.2011 for a period of 10 years. In the statement the guardian and next friend deposed that the amount deposited in the names of minors will not be withdrawn or any loan will be availed on that amount.
15. In the compromise petition it is prayed to record compromise in full and final settlement and to pass an award of settlement with a direction that the settlement amount which is in the F.D.Rs in the names of minor complainants shall be withdrawn by the minor petitioners after attaining their age of majority.
16. The terms of compromise are read over and explained to the parties in presence of their counsel. They admitted the contents to be true and signed in the Compromise Petition.
17. Therefore the following award is passed. The F.D.R. No. 62195553267 issued in the name of Siddartha and F.D.R issued in the name of Satwik bearing no.62195553585 both Dt: 26.7.2011 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, Court Complex Branch shall be withdrawn by the said minors Siddartha and Satwik after attaining the age of majority and the same will be continued in Fixed Deposit till their attaining age of majority instead of the terms 10 years mentioned in F.D.Rs. Further the F.D.Rs shall not be withdrawn till the minors attain the age of majority and no loan shall be sanctioned against the F.D.Rs. The Bank Manager is directed to incorporate the conditions in the F.D.R in the column seven “term” instead of ten years (10 Years) till the attaining the age of majority and endorsement that no loan can be sanctioned against these F.D.Rs.
18. In the result the complaint is closed in terms of compromise. No costs.
Dictated to Stenographer (DUR) and transcribed by her, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 26th day of July, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex,A1 is the photo copies of application for Death Certificate
Ex,A2 is the Death Certificate.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 is the original agreement executed between the husband & father of the
deceased.
Ex.C1 is the application for Death Certificate Dt: 23.3.2009,
Ex.C2 is the Death Report Dt: 23.3.2009.
Ex.C3 is the Death Certificate of deceased Dt: 8.9.2010.
Ex.C4 is the Account Opening Form along with photo copy of House hold Card.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
