Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/1628/07

CH. SUDHEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ESI CORPORATION LTD - Opp.Party(s)

PIP

20 Oct 2008

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/1628/07
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Hyderabad-II)
 
1. CH. SUDHEER
R/O H.NO. 8-3-228/95/B YADAGIRINAGAR HYD
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

 

F.A. No.Hyderabad

 

Between:

 

CH. Sudheer

S/o. Madhava Reddy

Age: 31 years,

H.No. 8-3-228/95/B

Yadagirinagar

Hyderabad.                                                          The ESI Corporation Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director

Medical State Insurance Department

Opp.GandhiHospital,

Musheerabad,Hyderabad.                                                                                               

                            

Counsel for the Appellant:                         Counsel for the Respondents: 

QUORUM:

 

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

&

 

                                                                                     

MONDAY, THIS THE 

 

 

ORAL ORDER:

 

***

 

         

         

 

         The case of the complainants in brief is that himself and his family members were covered by ESI scheme vide Ex. A1 ESI card.      They diagnosed that she was suffering from ‘Uretei Collie (L) Renal Caluli’ and referred her 

 

When he took her toOsmania GeneralHospital PramilaHospitalHyderabad.     Osmania GeneralHospital  

             Osmania Hospital as they were not having           Osmania GeneralHospital     

 

 

 

 

           

 

          

 

          Osmania GeneralHospital  

 

             It is also not in dispute that when she was suffering from ‘Uretei Collie (L) Renal Caluli’ ,  Though the appellant alleges that she was not admitted by Osmania hospital   PrameelaHospital, and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- evidenced under bills Ex. A3.       

 

 

               and only in case where such treatment is not available in the government hospital then the treatment could be taken from government recognized hospitals.  

 

The complainant contended that   

(1)             Acute Myocardial Infraction (Heart Attack)

(2)             Accidents involving head/spine and crush injuries

(3)             Patient in Coma

(4)             Acute Paralytic Stroke

(5)             Acute Poisoning.

 

vide Ex. B1 G.O. Ms. No. 117 Health   an unrecognized private hospital,   

 

         

 

 

         

         

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.