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

F.A.No.14/2008 against C.C.No.918/2005, District Forum-I,Hyderabad.

Between:

1. M/sYashodaSuperSpecialityHospital

2. Dr.Deen Dayal M.S.D.L.O (ENT Surgeon)

Cheeti Hanumantha Rao, S/o.late Narsing Rao

Aged 65 years, Agriculture, Indian,

R/o.Flat No.402, Sai Ramana Apartments,

Vijayapuri Tarnaka, Secunderabad-17.                                                                                                

Counsel for the Appellants: M/s.J.Suresh Babu

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s V.Gourisankara Rao..

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

AND

SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

(Typed to the dictation of

***

       Hyderabad, opposite parties 

Opposite parties filed counter admitting that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 hospital with complaint of throat pain etc and that opposite party no.2 attended and examined him thoroughly and found that there was Edema in the Hypopharyngial region and having difficulty in swallowing and hence he referred the patient to a Gastro-entrologist for necessary tests.      Opposite party No.2 submitted that on 23-7-2005, the complainant approached him with biopsy report, which revealed that there were cells invading Deeper layers superficially and Mononuclear cell infiltrate and if there is any invasion and infiltration of the cells, there are chances of getting converted into carcinoma, a provisional diagnosis was done that features are those of Microivasive Squamous cell Carcinoma and referred to Dr.Babaiah for confirmation.       

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A15 and B1 to B3 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to reimburse Rs.14,700/- to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

The brief point that falls for consideration is whether 

It is the complainant’s case that he approached opposite party no1. hospital on 14-7-2005 with complaint of throat pain, shortness of breath and dysphagia and was attended by opposite party No.2 doctor.             

It is the case of the appellant/opposite parties that the respondent/complainant underwent a biopsy and was discharged on 16/7/2005 with an advise to come for a review after one week with the report.       Ex.A10 clearly states that there is no evidence of malignancy in the biopsy material whereas the histopathology report of opposite parties hospital shows that there are features of focal microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma.     

·       When there is a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the hospital to establish that there is no negligence and due care and caution has been taken. In

·        , courts have taken a view that the hospital is responsible for the acts of their permanent staff as well as for the staff, whose services are temporarily requisitioned for treatment of patients.   

In the instant case  The contention of the appellants is that Ex.B3 is the same as Ex.A1 and therefore their report is not wrong, is unsustainable, on the ground that there is no evidence on record that the same slide was sent and also that there was no contamination of the said slide.         

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum 

                                                       JM