BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.174 OF 2002 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM SRIKAKULAM
Between
Dr.D.Parvathi, M.D.
Gynecologist, Govt. Hqrs Hospital
Srikakulam Town, Mandal and District
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. Guddala China Babu S/o late Latchayya
aged about 47 years, Occ: Cultivation
R/o Sakivanepeta Village, Etcherla Mandal
Srikakulam District
Respondent/complainant
- Dr.B.Anuradha, M.B.S.
Ladies Specialist,
City Central Maternity Center
Zilla Parishad Road,
Srikakulam Town and District
3. State of Andhra Pradesh
rep. by District Collector
Collector’s office, Srikakulam
Respondents/opposite parties no.1 & 3
Counsel for the Appellant Sri D.Devender Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri Aravala Rama Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri S.Subramanya Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 Sri S.A.Waheed Shahbaz
QUORUM:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum awarding an amount of `3 lakh payable by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 besides an amount of `20,000/- payable by the opposite party no.2 and the complaint against the opposite party no.3 was dismissed.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant’s wife was taken to the hospital of the opposite party no.1 on 26.10.2001for delivery at 8 p.m. from where at 4 a.m. she was referred to the Government Headquarter Hospital Srikakulam. In the government hospital the complainant’s wife was treated by the opposite party no.2. However, she died due to obstructed labour, prolonged pains and over bleeding occurred due to rupture of uterus.
3. The complaint was filed at the first instance against the opposite party no.1 and during its pendency, the opposite parties no.2 and 3 were impleaded. The opposite party no.1 resisted the claim contending that the complainant’s wife was treated by her for a short period and at the advanced stage of her pregnancy she did not turn to the opposite party no.1 for further treatment. The opposite party no.1 has collected an amount of `25/- towards consultation from the complainant. She has denied that the opposite party has paid a sum of `5,000/- for admission of his wife in her clinic and issuance of referral letter dated 26.1.2001 to the Govt. Hospital Srikakulam. It was contended that the complainant is a stranger to her and has no locus standi to file the complaint .
4. The opposite party no.2 resisted the claim on the grounds that the complaint was barred by limitation and the complaint was not maintainable against the opposite party no.2, for the complainant has not paid any consideration to the opposite party no.2 who treated the complainant’s wife free of charge. It was stated that the opposite party no.2 discharged her duty with utmost care and caution to the best of her ability and profession skill. She had taken steps for the patient to recover from the shock and recorded the BP of the patient which was shown as 80/40 mm.hg. She had also got the blood group and RH typing tests for transfusion of blood to the patient. The patient was not recovered from severe shock and expired within no time. The opposite partyno.2 observed that the patient was fourth gravida outside medaled with delayed approach came with a intra uterine fetal demise and with a bad stage on obstructed labour. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.2.
5. The opposite party no.3 resisted the claim that the complainant was negligent in not taking his wife to appropriate hospital. The opposite party no.3 has denied any liability and negligence on the part of the opposite party no.2.
6. The complainant has filed his affidavit and EXs.A1 to A7. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 filed their respective affidavits and got marked Exs.B1 to B18.
7. The appeal was filed contending that the opposite party no.2 is a government doctor and treated the complainant’s wife free of charge and the complainant does not come within the purview of C.P. Act. The complainant’s wife was brought to the government head quarters hospital Srikakulam in serious condition with severe Hypovolemic shock due to severe blood loss and with a complication of obstructed labour as also fetal death. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.
8. The Points for consideration are
1) Whether the complainant is consumer vis-à-vis the treatment rendered to his wife by the opposite party no.2?
2) Whether there as any difiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 in treating the comnlpainant’s wife?
3) To what relief?
9. POINT NO.1 the complainant’s wife during her pregnancy had approached the opposite partyno.1 who held a degree of bachelor of homeopathic medicine and surgery from Andhra University and registered as a medical practitioner under clause A in the Register of Medical Practitioners maintained by the Registrar of Andhra Board for homeopathy. On 26.1.2001 the opposite party no.1 has referred the complainant’s wife along with a referral letter wherein the complication developed by the complainant’s wife was described as obstructed labour with bad low pulse raised. The complainant’s wife suffered from obstructed labour with hemipersis of right lung. The case record of the government hospital shows that her condition degraded and it was not possible to record the pulse and blood pressure. There was no response to the treatment. She was declared died at 7.20 a.m. on 26.10.2001.
10. The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the complainant wife was treated in the government hospital free of charge. He has submitted the complainant is not a consumer vis-à-vis the opposite party no.2 who treated the complainant’s wife while working as a doctor in the service of the government. Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes the parameter of consideration for the service rendered in case of a person invoking the jurisdiction under C.P.Act. Consideration which is the basis of contract is made the criterion for determination of the status of a consumer under C.P. Act. Sec.2(1)(d) of C.P. Act reads as under
(d) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
11. The complainant has not paid any amount to the opposite partyno.2 for the purpose of treatment of his wife in the government hospital where the patients including the complainant’s wife have been treated free charge. The complainant having not paid any consideration to the opposite party no.2 for treatment of his wife cannot seek any relief against the opposite party no.2 invoking the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. At this stage, we may mention that the opposite party no.1 has filed a memo in the appeal, F.A.No.960 of 2007 filed by her wherein the complainant has stated that he had settled his claim with the opposite party no.1 during pendency of the appeal. The complainant having received the amount towards full satisfaction of his claim, has not evinced interest in defending this appeal filed by the opposite party no.2. As aforesaid, the complainant cannot be considered as consumer to be held entitled to any relief against the opposite party no.2. The point is answered against the complainant.
12. POINT NO.2 In view of the finding that the complainant is not a consumer qua the opposite party no.2, there need not be any discussion under this point.
13. POINT NO.3 In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated 6.6.2007 of the District Forum against the opposite party no.2 is set aside. Consequently, the complaint against the opposite party no.2 is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.27.10.2010
KMK*
