Present:       Sri D.                                                 President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan                                                 Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J.                                                  

 Tuesday, the 27^th day of May, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 45/2000

Between:

R. Age

R/o

Station Road, Adilibad District.

                      … Complainant

AND

1.      

Rep. by          Age: 45 yrs, H.No.4-5-15,

         J.P.N. Road,

         Warangal.

2.                 Age: 40 yrs,

                    H.No.4-5-15, C/o

          J.P.N. Road, Warangal.

3.       The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

          Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

          Talkies Lane,

          Warangal.

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. T.   Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties          No.1 and Sri K.   Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite party A.

                                                   ORDER

Sri D.

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.4,50,000/-.

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

The case of the complainant is that Opposite party No.2 got operated the complainant for Hysterectomy operation.  Opposite party No.2 has done so many tests through so many doctors after advise from one   Afterwards the   Thereafter the complainant was informed the same to Opposite party No.1 and she was in hospital for 5 days subsequent to her undergoing operation.  Later the complainant was advised to undergo CT scan in Hospital,   Then the CT scan was taken, as precautious, she was advised to get M.R.I. test in   Thereafter the complainant has been suffering untold misery and agony and she completely not cured               i.e., she completely loss of speech due to negligence and recklessness operation of opposite party No.2.   As such the complainant filed the present compliant for

          Opposite party No.2 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:

          Opposite party No.2 denied the allegations made by the complainant and after taking precautions and all tests prescribed in this in medical practice, and necessary tests conducted to the complainant after taking due care then she conducted hysterectomy operation to the complainant and moreover she has done the operation after advise of   Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant maybe dismissed.

          The complainant in support of her   On behalf of

Arguments heard from   No arguments were advanced from complainant Advocate and he filed a Memo on behalf of complainant withdrawing his   He already issued notices to the complainant, but so far as the notices   So that is the reason he reported “No instructions from the complainant”.  Then this Forum got issued notices to the complainant through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due to her address given in the complaint.  But the same notice returned,

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.4

          The case of the complainant is that Opposite party No.2 got operated the complainant for Hysterectomy operation.  Opposite party No.2 has done so many tests through so many doctors after advise from one   Afterwards the complainant got paralysis to her left limbs and her mouth.  Thereafter the complainant was informed the same to Opposite party No.1 and she was in hospital for 5 days subsequent to her undergoing operation.  Later the complainant was advised to undergo CT scan in Rohini Hospital,   Then the CT scan was taken, as precautious, she was advised to get M.R.I. test in   Thereafter the complainant has been suffering untold misery and agony and she completely not cured               i.e., she completely loss of speech due to negligence and recklessness operation of opposite party   The main contention of the complainant is that due to negligence and recklessness on the part of opposite party No.2, in conducting operation only she has been suffering untold misery and agony.  The complainant spent huge amount of Rs.2Appolo Hospital has prescribed the

tablets for use of complainant throughout her life.  The complainant is spending about Rs.300/- per day because of the deficiency of service, gross negligence and recklessness on the part of   Opposite party No.2 collected an amount ofRs.14  But the bill has given only for Rs.5  Now the complainant became permanent disability after the operation due to negligence and recklessness of the operation conducted by   Then she filed this case before this Forum under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and requested this Forum to grant an amount of Rs.4

          On the basis of evidence of Rw-1 she stated that after taking precautions and all tests prescribed in this in medical practice, and necessary tests conducted to the complainant after taking due care then she conducted hysterectomy operation to the complainant and moreover she has done the operation after advise of   On the report given by NIMs Hospital, Hyderabad for further management of Brain tumor of the complainant. The Rohini Hospital in its scan report for clinical correlation suggested M.R.I Study for further delineation of the nature of the Mass.  And they had made observations of the health removed sutures of the complainant made dressing and discharged the complainant for further management of the S.O.L.  The complainant fit for undergoing operation as per the certificate given by    pre operative checkups and she is not negligent and recklessness she was negligent in discharging duties and the services to the complainant. The complainant in any way is not competent or entitled to

entertain the complaint against them.  In this case the evidence of RW-1 clearly goes to show that as per the advise of   operation.  But there is no negligence on her part.  Except PW-  AND RW-1 there are no evidences before this Forum. 

As per citation cited by Opposite party No.2 in 2003 1 CPR 222 (NC)

Dr. S.                                       … Complainant

    Vs

Vijaya Health Centre                        … Opposite party

Held at Consumer protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Medical Negligence – Surgical mismanagement – Foot injury with diabetic gangrene – Limb salvage of infected Diabetic Foot ulcers with Micro surgical free – Muscle Transfer – No expert evidence on record to suggest that reconstructive surgery was not the correct method to treat the foot – Complainant’s plea that amputation was the only approach, held unsustainable”.

          So, the above citation case it is clear that expert evidence must be there from complainant side to prove the disease.  In the present case also the complainant stated that after the operation conducted by   For this she has not examined any expert doctor from her side.  So the above cited judgment is applicable to the case of the opposite parties against the complainant side.

          In another citation 1999 (3) CPR 38 (NC)

Tarachand Jain                                          

           VS

Ganga Ram Hospital & another                         

So the above cited judgment also clearly applicable to the case of not conducted operation in a well manner after taking precautionary measures and after taking all the tests   by her on the advice of  

Point NO.2: To what relief:- The first point is decided in

          Since there is no negligence on the part of opposite party No.1,

          In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 27^th May, 2008)

                                                                                                                                  Member           Member         President,

                                                 District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit and Deposition of PW-1                            Deposition and Affidavit of O.P.2

                                                                 Affidavit of O.P.3 filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 Prescription issued by
2. Ex.A-2 Prescription issued by
3. Ex.A-3 Prescription issued by
4. Ex.A-4 Ex.A-5 Receipt of Blood bank, dt.5-1-2000.
5. Ex.A- 6 Inpatient receipt issued by
6. Ex.A-7 Scan Brain with GADO issued by Hyderabad Appollo Hospital.
7. Ex.A-8 Result issued by Hyderabad Appollo Hospital.
8. Ex.A-9 Complete blood picture with ESR issued by Hyderabad Appollo Hospital.
9.  Ex.A-10 Department of Hyderabad Appollo Hospital.
10.  Ex.A-11 Thyroid Profile issued by Hyderabad
11.  Ex.A-12 Micro Biology issued by
12.  Ex.A-13 E.C.G Report issue by
13.  Ex.A-14
14.  Ex.A-15 Report of C.S.F. for Biochemical analysis by
15.  Ex.A-16 CSF for Cell court by
16.  Ex.A-17 Reference range test
17.  Ex.A-18 & A – 19 Discharge summary of complainant issued by Hyderabad.

19.  Ex.A-20 & 21 Urine Examination report of complainant issued by Warangal.
20.  Ex.A-22 Receipt of CT scan, Rohini Hospital,   Ex.A-23 Concession certificate.
21.   Ex.A-24 Inpatient bill issued by Hyderabad.
22.   Ex.A-25  to 27 -Treatment of Biochemist,  

        Appollo Hospitals, Hyderabad.

24.    Ex.A-28
25.    Ex.A-29 Attested copy of letter.
26.    Ex.A-30 Prescription of
27.    Ex.A-31 Scanning report issued by M/s  

        Hyderabad.

28.    Ex.A-32 Prescriptions issued by    Ex.A-33 Prescription issued by Hyderabad.
29.     Ex.A-34 prescription issued by   

 On behalf of

  1. Ex.B-1 Case   maintained by Opposite parties 1 and 2.