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 05th day of June, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 182/1998
Between:
1. Uyyala Sujatha, W/o Kumara Swamy,
Age: 20 yrs.
2. Uyyala Saramma, W/o Komuraiah,
Age: 45 yrs.
3. Uyyala Sirisha, D/o kumara Swamy
Age: 4 yrs, (Minor), rep. by complainant No.1.
All are resident of Mulugu Ghanpur (V & M),
District Warangal. … Complainants
AND
Kondaparthy Rama Murthy, S/o Venkatramnarsaiah,
Age: 48 yrs, Occ: R.M.P. Doctor,
C/o Srinivasa Prasuthi & General Nursing Home (V) & (M),
Mulugu Ghanpur, District Warangal.
… Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. L. Jalandhar Reddy, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Sri L. Ayodhya Ramaiah, Advocate.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiraneevi Babu, President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainants against the Opposite party under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest 18%.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainants are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that on 1-7-94 Kumaraswamy went to the hospital of Opposite party along with his wife and relatives for treatment as he was suffering with fever. On the instructions of opposite party his compounder D.Ravi examined the temperature of Kumara swamy and informed the same to the opposite party and he tested the B.P. and fever of the Kumaraswamy. Opposite party negligently gave 2 ml cloroquil and 1 ml of Analgine injection to Kumaraswamy. Immediately the above medicine reacted and condition of Kumaraswamy became serious. Immediately on the advice of opposite party Kumaraswamy was shifted to Govt.Hospital, Parkal. The doctor of the hospital advised to shift Kumaraswamy to MGM Hospital, Warangal. Then the complainants shifted the said Kumaraswamy to MGM Hospital and admitted in the said hospital. The chief Medical Officer examined the Kumara swamy stated that due to negligence treatment of the Opposite party the health of Kumara swamy came into dangerous and he tried to save the life, but his attempts became in vain. The Kumaraswamy died on 3-7-94 at about 11.00 pm in MGM Hospital, Warangal. After the death of the deceased the opposite party requested the complainants not to file any complaint before police and agreed to pay compensation and executed an agreement on 3-7-94 in favour of one T.Hari Padam. In the agreement opposite party admitted that the deceased died due to the reaction of injection given by him and agreed to pay compensation as decided by Haripadam. One Dr.M.A.Siddique M.D. Professor, Head of Department of Medicine KMC, Warangal who gave treatment to the deceased opined that death of the deceased was complete heart block due to Anaphylatic shock result from cloroquil injection. This shows that the opposite party without proper knowledge and in negligent manner gave cloroquil injection. Due to negligence and carelessness of the opposite party only the deceased died. The complainant paid fee to the doctor for treatment of the deceased. Since the opposite party has taken fee from the complainant due to negligence only the deceased died and further the deceased used to earn amount of Rs.2,000/- per month. Due to the negligence of the opposite party, the deceased died. After the death of the deceased the opposite party did not keep his promise and used to postpone to pay the compensation when ever demanded by the complainant. Then the complainants filed a complaint before S.H.O Ghanpur Police Station on 5-8-94. Later they filed this case before this Forum.
The Opposite party filed the Written Version as well as in his evidence i.e, RW-1 that he denied all the allegations mentioned in the complaint and he stated that he also did not give any cloroquil injection to the deceased but he admitted that the deceased Kumara Swamy died at another hospital but not in his hospital and further he admitted that the complainants relatives and elders came and forcibly in coercion manner took one agreement from him by way of saying that he has to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- out of that Rs.40,000/- took by T.Haripadan and remaining Rs.40,000/- has to be paid by the opposite party. Like that an agreement was taken by the elders from the complainant side and further stated in his Written Version and RW-1 that there is no any negligence on his part as he was not examined the deceased Kumara Swamy.
The complainants in support of their claim, filed the Affidavit of complainant No.1 in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of Opposite party Sri K.Rammurthy and P.Sambaiah filed their Affidavits in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 to B-3.
Now the point for consideration whether the complainants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- @ interest 18% p.a.
In this case the counsel for the complainant not argued the matter but he filed the Written arguments. After gone through all the materials placed by the complainants as well as the opposite party, our reasons are like this:
In this case, whether the opposite party has treated the deceased Kumara Swamy or not first we have to decide.
After gone through the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 it is clear that the opposite party has treated the patient and he gave cloroquil injection. No doubt the opposite party denied that he has not given any injection but as per Ex.A-6 it is clear that the letter given by Asst.Professor of Head of the Department of Medicine, KMC, Warangal as per his letter the said Kumarswamy on 3-7-94 at 12.15 a.m. died of complete shock due to Anaphylactic shock resulted from cloroquil injection. So as per Ex.A-6 it clearly goes to show that the deceased Kumara Swamy died only due to cloroquil injection and as per the contention of the complainants is that the opposite party gave cloroquil injection and further they were stating that they took the deceased to the hospital of the opposite party. So the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and as well as in Ex.A-6 it clear cut that the deceased died only due to negligence of the doctor i.e, opposite party i.e, he gave cloroquil injection to the opposite party, as per the opinion of Head of the Department under Ex.A-6. So the deceased died only due to negligence treatment of opposite party doctor.
Further as per Ex.A-3 letter given by Ram Murthy i.e, opposite party as per this due to cloroquil injections given by him the deceased died. So it is in Telugu version i.e., Ex.A-3. So this much enough to say that due to negligence of opposite party the deceased Kumara Swamy died. And Further Exs.A-1 and A-2 shows that the opposite party gave 3 guntas of land cost of Rs.40,000/- and 4 guntas of land cost of Rs.35,000/- gave to the deceased family members in the presence of elders. But those documents are not at all valid before this Forum because they are not authenticated documents. They are only Xerox copies. Ex.A-3 also a Xerox copy but here already the opposite party admitted that he has given Cloroquil injection and further the documents filed by the Opposite party i.e, Ex.B-2 Deposition of T.Haripadam who acted as elderly person in between opposite party and complainant side. He stated in the deposition before Judicial Magistrate I class of Mulugu in CC 228/95 which the complaint filed by the complainant before the Police, Mulugu against the Accused he stated that he came to know that the deceased died due to reaction of injection given by doctor in that connection there was a panchayat held in the village. He himself conducted the Panchayat along with elders and had decided in Panchayat that the Accused should pay Rs.40,000/- to the wife of the deceased and accordingly the accused paid Rs.40,000/- to the wife of the deceased. So as per T.Haripadam evidence ie, Ex.B-3 it is clear that the accused i.e, opposite party has paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the wife of the deceased. If really there is no negligence on the part of opposite party why he paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the wife of the deceased. So certainly there is negligence on his part and further there is an agreement between the complainant and opposite party with regard to compensation ie., for an amount of Rs.80,000/-. For this T.Haripadam has admitted in his deposition that he stated to the police that the accused admitted his guilt in their presence and he executed an agreement agreeing to pay Rs.80,000/- to the family of the deceased. So he stated before the police only i.e, Ex.B-2 at page No.3, Except Ex.B-2 there is no documentary proof to show that opposite party agreed to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/-. On the basis of Ex.A-6 and Ex.B-2 it is clear that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party. And further Ex.B-2 shows that the accused wife that the complainant herein already received an amount of Rs.40,000/- certainly it is clearly goes to show that there is negligence on the part of opposite party. No doubt the complainant filed this case for grant of compensation of Rs.3,25,000/-, but she is not entitled to get that amount from the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.40,000/- as Rs.40,000/- which already she received from opposite party through T.Haripadam. So we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- only to the complainant No.1.
Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of complainant against the opposite party.
Point No.2: To what relief:- The first point is decided in favour of complainants against the opposite party, this point also decided in favour of complainants against opposite party.
In the result this complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.Forty thousand only) to the complainant No.1 along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of deposit and we also direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rs.Five hundred only) towards costs.
A month’s time is granted to the opposite party for the compliance of the order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 5th June, 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 and Deposition of PW-1 Affidavit & Deposition of RW-1
Affidavit and Deposition of witness of C. Affidavit of witness of O.P. RW-2
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Xerox copy of letter executed by Opposite party, dt.25-6-94.
- Ex.A-1 (a) Signature of T.Yadagiri Goud PW-2.
- Ex.A-2 Xerox copy of letter executed by Opposite party, dt.28-6-94.
- Ex.A-2 (a) Signature of T.Yadagiri Goud PW-2.
- Ex.A-3 Xerox copy of letter by Opposite party, dt.3-7-94.
- Ex.A-3 (a) Signature of T.Yadagiri Goud PW-2.
- Ex.A-4 First Information Report.
- Ex.A-5 Charge sheet by Police, dt.5-8-94.
- Ex.A-6 xerox copy of letter from Professor and Dept. of Medicine to Superintendent of MGM hospital.
On behalf of Opposite party.
- Ex.B-1 Judgment in C.C.228/95 dt.27-6-1999.
- Ex.B-2 Deposition of witness PW-8.
- Ex.B-3 First Information report by Police in Cr.No.27/94.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
