BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.

FA.No.538/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.136/2005 

Between:

Dr.B.Leelavathi Obstetrician &

Gynecologist, Leelavathi Nursing Home

NearOldMoonLodgeBuilding

Peddapalli of Karimnagar District.                            

1. Malliala Saivardhini D/o.Sathaiah

   VillageVelgatur

2. Malliala Sathaiah, S/o.Butchaiah

   VillageVelgatur

                                         Complainants.

3. Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences,

4. The New India Assurance Company Limited,

   Pragathinagar Station Road, Peddapalli

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.G.Ramagopal

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao-R2

FA.No.650/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.136/2005 

Between:

The New India Assurance Company Limited,(D.O)

Pedapally Branch, Branch Office,

Pragathinagar Station Road, Peddapalli.

R/by its Branch Manager.

(Impleaded as per order in IA                  

1. Malliala Saivardhini D/o.Sathaiah

   VillageVelgatur

2. Malliala Sathaiah, S/o.Butchaiah

   VillageVelgatur

                                         Complainants.

3. Dr.B.Leelavathi Obstetrician &

   OldMoonLodgeBuilding

4. Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences,

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

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,.

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN

(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.136/2005 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, opposite party No.1 preferred F.A.No.538/2007 and opposite party No.3 preferred F.A.No.650/2007. 

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant No.1 is the daughter and complainant No.2 was the husband of late Subhadra who died on 11-6-2004 on account of negligence in treatment of opposite parties 1 and 2.           

The complainants submitted that opposite party no.1 had not taken proper care in treating the deceased and neglected to conduct urine test to find out protein urea particularly when she noted high blood pressure and oedema of feet of the deceased and not conducted the pathological tests while giving treatment to the deceased and had not admitted her in the nursing home on 11-6-2004 when the deceased was suffering from severe pain and her condition was critical.   

Opposite party No.1 filed counter and stated that the deceased first time consulted her on 12-1-2004 at the age of 14 weeks of gestation and there was no prenatal treatment.    th      thth    

Opposite party No.2 filed a counter stating that it was not a Corporate hospital but a not profit registered charitable society registered as per rules of Andhra Pradesh (TA) public societies registration Act, 1360 Fasli.      

Opposite party No.3 remained exparte.

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A12 and B1 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint against opposite parties 1 and 3 directing them to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in all with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 24-5-2005 till payment together with costs of Rs.1,000/-. 

Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.1 preferred 

The brief point that falls for consideration is whether opposite party No.1 has been negligent in treating the patient and also if the insurance company, who is the appellant in F.A.No.650/2007  

We rely on the judgement of the apex court inIn   

a)    A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case

b)    A duty of care in deciding what treatment to be given

c)     A duty of care in the administration of that treatment

We are of the considered view that duty of care in treating the patient as per normal standards as also defined by the apex court inMc.Nair J. in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 2 All ER 118, 121 now widely known as the “Bolam test”which reads as under:

“But where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man  A man need not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being found negligent… it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.” 

His Lordship agreed with the counsel’s statement that “negligence means failure to act in accordance with the standards of reasonably competent medical men at the time” was a perfectly accurate statement of the law, provided that it was remembered that there may be one or more perfectly proper standards::

“A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art….  

Hence we hold that there is negligence on behalf of appellant/opposite party No.1. 

               The appellant/insurance company did not choose to file the policy copy.  

            This amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is to be kept in an F.D. in the name of the minor till she attains majority and the balance amount of Rs.62,000/- together with costs of Rs.1,000/- is to be paid to complainant No.2. The interest of 6% p.a. accrued on Rs.4,32,000/- is also to be kept in the fixed deposit for the welfare of the minor daughter.

F.A.No.650/2007 is also allowed in part restricting the liability of the insurance company to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.  

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                               JM                                                                    L.R. copy marked/not to be marked