COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.

 F.A.No.437/2007  against C.D.No.112/1996, Dist.Forum, Nizamabad.

Between:

1.Dr.Omprakash Singh, MBBS., MD.,

   Occ:Doctor at Siddartha Nursing Home,

   Near Srinivasa Theatre on Nizamabad Main Road,

   Shakarnagar P.C.503180 Bodhan Town,

   Bodhan R.M.,  Presently residing at Siddartha

   Nursing Home , Astalaxmi Temple Road,

   Margadarsi Colony , Kothapet,

   Hyderabad -500 035.

2. Dr.Nawrathan Singh, M.B.B.S., M.S.,

    & Asst. Civil Surgeon to Govt of A.P.Bodhan

    C/o.Siddartha Nursing Home,

    Near Srinivasa Theatre on Nizamabad Main Road,

    Shakarnagar P.C. 503 180 Bodhan Town,

    Bodhan R.M.

3. Dr.Susheela, M.B.B.S., D.A. Occ:Doctor,

    C/o. Siddartha Nursing Home,

    Near Srinivasa Theatre on Nizamabad main road,

    Shakarnagar P.C. 503 180 Bodhan Town, Bodhan R.M.

    Presently residing at Siddartha Nursing Home,

    Astalaxmi Temple Road, Margadarsi Colony,

    Kothapet,Hyderabd – 500 035.                            …  Appellants/

                                                                              Opp.parties

              And

Kadurka Lakshmaiah, S/o.late Naganna,

Aged about 49 years Occ:Business/Agriculture,

R/o.Sangam (V) of Bodhan R.M.,

Of District Nizamabad.                                                   … Respondent/

                                                                             Complainant

Counsel for the appellants             :   M/s.Gowrisankar Rao  

Counsel  for the respondent           :   Notice served.              

CORAM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND,HON’BLE MEMBER

                         TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH  DAY OF JUNE,     

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order : (Per Smt. M.Shreesha ,  Hon’ble   Member. )

                                                    ***

            Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.112/1996  on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, Opposite  Parties preferred this appeal .

The brief facts as set out in the complaint  are that  the complainant is a resident of  Sangam Village of Nizamabad District  and  he consulted the opposite parties with a complaint of stomach ache and digestion problem. Opposite parties advised for blood and urine tests  and after going through the reports  they advised the complainant to undergo  emergency appendicitis operation.   Opposite parties conducted the operation for which the complainant paid Rs.2000/- and during the postoperative period  complainant developed enteric fistula  and pulmonary  tuberculosis   and  while opening the stitches on 20.11.1993 blood and puss was flowing.  On  direction of opposite parties, the complainant was shifted to Medwin Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment where he was treated with colostomy appliances and antibiotics and given treatment for anti tuberculosis and later was  operated twice for closure of  fistula and was  finally discharged  on  17.9.1995   with instruction to continue medicines life long.  The complainant submits that  he was in good health before the operation at opposite parties hospital but because of the negligence and deficiency of service of opp.parties his health condition totally deteriorated and he became physically unfit to work and move freely.  The complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties and as there is no response for it filed  complaint before the District Forum  seeking direction to the opposite parties  to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,99,999/- along with interest and costs. 

        Opposite parties filed counter denying all the allegations of the complainant and contending that on examining the complainant it was diagnosed that he was suffering with acute perforated appendicitis and as there were no facilities at their Bodhan Nursing Home  to conduct emergency operation they advised  him to go to Govt. Head Quarters, Nizamabad.   The attendants of the complainant  threatened opposite parties 1 and 2 with  dire consequences for non conducting operation  and left the hospital along with the complainant.  Opposite parties submit that they have not seen the complainant afterwards and so the question of conducting operation does not arise and the complainant  filed false complaint against them and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.          

        Exs. A1 to A36 documents  were marked on behalf of the complainant. The complainant examined himself as PW1    and his friend one Vittal Reddy  examined as PW.2 .    Opp.Party no.2 filed counter affidavit  and opposite parties 1 and 3 filed third party affidavit of Dr.Prashant Kurudkar, General Surgeon, Nizamabad as evidence and was cross examined by complainant’s advocate.  The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings put forward partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties   to pay jointly and severally Rs.50,000/-  to the complainant as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service and  to pay Rs.1000/-  towards costs  within  two months  and in default  the complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of the order  till realization.  

        Aggrieved  by the   said order opposite parties  preferred this appeal.

            On perusal of the material on record we observe that the complainant’s case is that he approached opposite parties on 8.11.93 with  stomach pain and underwent  Appendicitis operation in opposite party hospital on 9.11.93.  It is the case of the complainant  that he developed Faecal  Fistula because of the faulty operation conducted by the opposite parties. The complainant states that  he was also affected by Pulmonary Tuberculosis   and on  20.11.93  when the stitches were  being removed there was blood and puss flowing  out  and the complainant developed  Enteric Fistula and opposite parties 1 to 3  hurriedly directed the complainant to be shifted to Hyderabad for further treatment.   At  Medwin Hospital, Hyderabad  the complainant    submits that he was initially  managed conservatively  by antibiotics and given treatment for Anti Tuberculosis.   The complainant further  submits that he  suffered   pain and agony and he was once again operated on 10.12.93.  Thereafter  he was  repeatedly admitted in  Medwin hospital and  he continuously  took treatment for 2 years till  17.9.95,  only because of the negligence of the  opposite parties.  The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no negligence on behalf of the opposite parties and that they never  operated upon  the complainant for acute perforated appendicitis and infact  they advised him to go to  Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad as there is no such  facility to conduct emergency operation at their hospital, Bodhan.   The Faecal Fistula is a known  complication of perforated appendicitis and that Pulmonary Tuberculosis  cannot be developed because of Faecal Fistula. They further  contend that investigation reports issued by New Standard Pathological Laboratory, Bodan on 9.11.93  have been created for  the purpose  of this case and that the  Pathologist   of the  said laboratory did not  even file  any  affidavit stating that they have  issued the said reports upon the prescriptions issued by opp.party no.1.  The learned counsel for  the appellant  stated  that  the alleged  surgery has nothing to do  with  Pulmonary Tuberculosis. 

        While, there is no evidence to state that pulmonary  tuberculosis has  developed as a result of any negligence  by the opposite parties, however  it is pertinent to note that the opposite parties  deny  the very conducting of  any operation in their counter and contend  that  they advised the complainant to go to  Government Head Quarters  Hospital at Nizamabad, when  Exs.A1 to A15  are the test reports   filed by the complainant as evidence which are  issued by New Standard Pathologicial Laboratory ,Bodhan in the complainant’s name recommended by opposite party no.1 Doctor. The Discharge Summary of Medwin Hospital Ex.A14 clearly states that the patient was operated at another  hospital for Appendicitis on 8.11.93  and developed Enteric Fistula. The date of admission in this exhibit is mentioned as  20.11.93  and date of discharge is 10.12.93.  In this discharge summary Medwin hospital also stated that the patient had undergone appendicitis operation   outside,   developed Faecal Fistula and  was also  found to be suffering from Tuberculosis and was treated accordingly  once again.  Ex.A15  is the Discharge Summary of Medwin Hospital where the  date of admission is  mentioned as 24.12.93 and date of discharge is 30.12.93 wherein it is stated that the patient was suffering from Pulmonary  Tuberculosis  with Post Appendectomy Faecal Fistula and he  was  treated for further  management.  Ex.A16 and A17 are also  the discharge summaries of Medwin Hospitals dt.28.1.94 and 4.9.95, the dates of discharge being 16.2.94 and 16.9.95 when the complainant was treated for the same disease.   The complainant also got issued a legal notice on 24.11.95 to opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming compensation for the negligent operation.  Opposite parties did not chose to reply to this legal notice. Only for the first time in their counter they have stated that they have nothing to do with the operation  and that they have referred the complainant to the  Government Hospital , Nizamabad and contended  that the  Pathologist who issued reports from the New Standard Pathological Laboratory has not been examined. The complainant established his case  by filing the  reports and also the  prescription, Ex.A5 issued by Siddartha Nursing  Home  belonging to opposite parties 1 to 3.  Hence the burden of proof shifts to the opposite parties to prove  that they have  never  treated the complainant.  It is pertinent to note that the appellants/opposite parties did not file any documentary evidence in support of their contention that these reports of New Standard Pathological Laboratory dt.9.11.93, i.e. the date  of operation itself are ‘fabricated’  and  are ‘created’ documents.   It is clear that the opposite parties did not  chose to lead any evidence,  by examining the Pathologist  who issued  reports, in support of their case.   In the light of the fact that the  name of the doctor i.e. the name of  opposite party no.1 appearing on the pathological laboratory reports and the prescription Ex.A5  all dated 9.11.93  and also keeping  in view the discharge summaries of Medwin Hospital wherein it is clearly stated that  the patient underwent appendicitis  operation in other hospital on 8.11.93  and developed  Enteric Fistula  and he was also suffering from Tuberculosis, we are of the considered view that the  bald denial of the appellants/opposite parties that they  have never treated the patient  is unsustainable. 

        Keeping in view  the afore mentioned reasons, this appeal is dismissed and order of the  District Forum is confirmed.  Time for compliance four weeks.     

                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                        MEMBER

                                                         MEMBER

                                                         16.6.2009