BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Friday, the 23rd day of May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 487/1993
Between:
Guguloth Lakshmi, W/o Chakku,
R/o Mogilicharla Thanda,
Post Mogilicharla,
Mandal and Via Kuravi,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
Dr. Vasumathi Reddy,
Pavani Nursing Home,
Mahabubabad,
District Warangal.
… Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. CAR Sheshagiri Rao, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Sri P. Shiva Rao, 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 complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.1,80,000/-.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that when she approached the Opposite party on 16-6-93 with a complaint of white discharge, back ache since long time and earlier she was advised by the Doctors at Chandrapur to undergo operation and on 17-6-93 the Opposite party conducted the operation of Hysterectomy to the complainant and removed uterus and that due to improper operation the complainant suffered damage of urinary bladder. Then she filed this case before this Forum.
Opposite party filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
The case of the opposite party is that the symptoms expressed by complainant clinically examined and other reports conducted at Chandraur shows that there is infection to uterus and therefore Hysterectomy operation was conducted on 17-6-93 with the assistance of Dr.Manmohan Das and Dr.Ramesh Babu and other assistants. The operation was successful and the patient was there in the Nursing Home for 7 days without any complaint and after removing sutures she was discharged with advise to maintain hygene and cleanliness apart from continuing medicines and on 28th again she approached the opposite party with complaint of continuous dribbling of urine. Then the opposite party admitted her in to the hospital and catheter was put and advised the patient to take treatment then the said complaint was cured then she was advised to continue the medicines, but the patient did not turn up. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party.
The complainant in support of her claim, filed her Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-32. On behalf of opposite party RW-1 and RW-2 examined and marked Ex.B-1.
Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is negligent or there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party?
After arguments of both side counsels our reasons are like this:
For this our answer is that there is no deficiency of service on the part
of the Opposite party. In this case complainant was examined as PW-1. Her evidence goes to show about the complaint contents. As per evidence it is clear that at the time of operation she paid Rs.2,400/- to Opposite party and two days after operation there was dribbling of urine then catheter was fixed for few days. Thereafter she was discharged and later the said treatment of dribbling of urine was there and that she was informed that urinary bladder was damaged. Later she consulted Urology at Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal and subsequently she went to Nagpur where she was admitted in hospital on occasions in 1994 spent huge amount, but the ailment was not cured and this only due to careless operation. As per the contention of PW-1 it is clear that only due to careless operation of Opposite party she got all the diseases after the operation only.
For this in her cross examination she stated that prior to 16-6-93 she consulted Doctors at Chandrapur, where she was subjected to some tests and advised for operation. Later she approached opposite party who conducted operation and after suffering with ailment of dribbling of urine she approached Doctors at Hanamkonda. They stated her that the same was due to improper operation. It is admitted that she was in patient for one week in the hospital of Opposite party. She further admitted that urinary problem is later cured and she admitted that her uterus is infected before operation. He could not get any letter or certificate from any doctor to the effect that the operation was conducted carelessly on the other hand Ex.A-29 Case sheet Hospital at Bhallalpur on 19-9-94 reveals that 5 days after discharge she developed ailment of urine and that the ailment is treated at Government Hospital, Hanamkonda and as not relieved.
As per evidence of RW- it is clear that the she has done the operation in a correct manner and the procedure adopted by her is correct and medical science approved that there is a possibility of small damage of bladder at the time of while separating the infected uterus and further the documents filed by the complainant more particularly the records of Government Hospital where RW-2 has been working in other hospital does not reveal any observations about the alleged improper operation by Opposite party. And further to prove the evidence of PW-1 by way of saying that due to negligence operation conducted by Opposite party she got continuous dribbling of urine to support her version she has not filed any documentary proof and also she has not adduced any evidence through expert. If she really got any evidence from any expert with regard to her version, certainly this Forum will believe the version of the complainant. But here no expert doctor is examined on behalf of complainant side. For this there is a citation by National Commission reported at
1999 CPR 13 NC
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhashis Dhir and Anr. … Appellants
VS
Smt.Sanjukta Sengupta & Others … Respondents
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – Medical Negligence – Complainant suffering bronchial problem and breathing trouble took treatment from appellants but her condition deteriorated – Her condition improved when she consulted other doctors – State Commission accepted complainant’s claim and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against each of two appeallants – Appeal – No medical evidence tendered by complainant and case was disposed of on basis of certificates given by persons who were not medical men – Neither in discharge certificate given by Hospital nor in prescription of the Doctor there was any suggestion that treatment given to petitioner by appellant was wrong – Appellant could not have been held guilty of giving wrong treatment – Even if appellants were assumed to have erred in their judgment, it could not be held straightway that there was medical negligence – Complainant could not be said to have proved her case of deficiency of service against appellants – Impugned order of State Commission was liable to be set aside.
As per this judgment some expert evidence has to be examined. So expert evidence must be proved with the evidence of pW-1 without proving the evidence of PW-1 with expert, mere saying that due to negligence operation of opposite party the complainant sustained continuous dribbling of urine it is baseless and there is no water in the lake. Subsequently PW-1 has to examine any expert doctor to prove her case. But in this case except evidence of PW-1 there is no evidence to show that due to negligence operation conducted by Opposite party she got continuous dribbling of urine. So the above judgment is applicable to the case of the Opposite parties against the complainant.
In another judgment cited by Opposite party in
1993 (3) CPR 38 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Tarachand Jain … Complainant
VS
Sri Ganga Ram Hospital & Anr. … Opposite parties.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 and 14 – Medical Negligence – Complainant was operated for prostate on 11-9-90 and was discharged on 15-9-90 – Problem of continuous urine flow alleged continued – Allegation that sphincter muscle of complainant was cut during operation and there was incontinence (leaking of urine) – Complainant could not built up the case merely by producing letter from Doctor who was initially consulted by complainant in Opposite party Hospital – Complainant did not take steps to produce the doctor in support of his case – Prescription issued by another doctor did not show that sphincter muscle was cut during opeation – No cogent convincing and reliable evidence produced in support of allegations made in complaint – No medical expert produced – Complainant could not be held to have proved charge of negligence of deficiency of service”.
This is a direct judgment which support to this case of present case facts. Because in this case also the complainant has not produce any medical expert certificate or she has not adduced any evidence through medical expert to prove the case. So the above cited both judgments are applicable to opposite parties against complainant. On the basis of RW-1 and RW-2 and on basis of above cited judgments we come to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove her case. And she is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party. When there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party this case does not comes under deficiency of service. When there is no deficiency of service against the opposite party this case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of opposite party against complainant.
Point NO.2: To what relief: The first point is decided in favour of opposite parties against complainant, this point also decided in favour of opposite party against complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed but without cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 23rd May, 2008).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit of complainant filed Depositions of RW-1 and RW-2.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 xerox copy of Madurwar X-ray ultrasound and 2-D Echo clinic of Pelvic Sonography.
- Ex.A-2 Discharge card of complainant.
- Ex.A-3 Prescription given by Dr.Y. Indrasena Reddy.
- Ex.A-4 True copy of prescription issued by Opposite party, 4-12-05.
- Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-22 are the prescriptions of the complainant.
- Ex.A-23 Serology & Semen Exam report, dt.16-6-93.
- Ex.A-24 cash memo.
- Ex.A-25 True copy X-ray and ECG
- Ex.A-26 is Gynaecological case record issued by Govt.Hospital.
- Ex.A-27 Prescription of Dr.Eshwar Goud.
- Ex.A-28 Prescription of Dr.Sapkal.
- Ex.A-29 Prescription of Dr.Sapkal.
- Ex.A-30 to A-32.Discharge card.
On behalf of Opposite party.
- Ex.B-1 Inpatient Case sheet issued by Pavani Nursing Home, Mahabubabad.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
